sigur ròs
Guest
I would like to understand the differences between autocad and revit....(the yes is like the question of the school)....I just used the autocad and never opened the revit... can you tell me what changes??? ? ? ? Thank you.
PlannerRoad
Guest
in general perhaps you can better answer the autodesk:
here for revit architecture:http://images.autodesk.com/emea_s_main/files/autodesk_revit_architecture_brochure_detail_new.pdfe per vit structure:http://images.autodesk.com/emea_s_main/files/revitstruct10_brochure-detail_cs2_a4_it_lowres.pdf
here for revit architecture:http://images.autodesk.com/emea_s_main/files/autodesk_revit_architecture_brochure_detail_new.pdfe per vit structure:http://images.autodesk.com/emea_s_main/files/revitstruct10_brochure-detail_cs2_a4_it_lowres.pdf
Albertuan
Guest
change everything.
to work on revit is much more related to a "project done well", where, from the three-dimensional model, revenues various data and verify them.
autocad, in its various forms, still allows you to get out of pastries whatever the problem... usually.
therefore, the true strength of self-desk, compared to the competitors, both in the mechanic with inventor, and in architecture with revit, are the suites!
with the suites you have the "superfigo" program, if something goes wrong, you always have the opportunity to launch autocad and deliver the job without waiting for assistance, patch or divine help! :biggrin:
sigur ròs
Guest
today I opened for the first time revit 2010 and I had the impression that conceptually it is a program closer to the archicad than to the autocas....me you confirm it?
PlannerRoad
Guest
Of course I do.
roberto
Guest
I've been using revit for two years. archicad and allplan I just heard of him.
If you have to make a simple project, a barrel and away, without looking too much at the details and Italianity of the real buildings, it's fine. pull on two walls, put the roof and you can enjoy your first 3d right away.
things get a little more complicated when you claim that the stairs are not fake, the spiral stairs are realized, when you want to put the ground around, when you have to make variations and become processes of bitter shit.
However, if you are an excellent programmer you can always realize or change families (the very few blocks to the autocad).
You just have to see if everything is worth the candle... on some occasion I had to export everything in autocad and continue "the old way". .
However, expanding your culture is always good. Perhaps in 150 years we can throw away this cad that now business man would want us to consider hateful and overtaken.......:mixed::bekle::angry:
If you have to make a simple project, a barrel and away, without looking too much at the details and Italianity of the real buildings, it's fine. pull on two walls, put the roof and you can enjoy your first 3d right away.
things get a little more complicated when you claim that the stairs are not fake, the spiral stairs are realized, when you want to put the ground around, when you have to make variations and become processes of bitter shit.
However, if you are an excellent programmer you can always realize or change families (the very few blocks to the autocad).
You just have to see if everything is worth the candle... on some occasion I had to export everything in autocad and continue "the old way". .
However, expanding your culture is always good. Perhaps in 150 years we can throw away this cad that now business man would want us to consider hateful and overtaken.......:mixed::bekle::angry:
sigur ròs
Guest
then autocad for the 2d, studio 3d for renderings and revit for sports?
marcof
Guest
Of course, if you design and produce cubes:wink:
... if you are reduced to passing by acad means that the program is not at all superfluous.
but rotfl!
I would like to see you with acad finish a mold with some complex surface or an automatic machine of 7-8000 components because the cad "superfigo" does not allow you to move on.. .
GP.
Guest
Well, reducing autocad to a program to design cubes seems to me a little exaggerated, it is clear that for your last example you will use another software (if you don't want to hurt yourself), but here the discussion lies in the differences between revit and autocad in architectural context.
I would draw attention to the time of use of the program, if you plan sporadically I also think that with autocad anyone can come out, revit you have to use it, use it, use it.... .
marcof
Guest
albertuan argued, citing it, that you can always finish a project started with inventor using autocad. I was a bit synthetic but I meant that if with inventor (or revit) cube projects then you can finish the job even with autocad, if not with autocad if you have to finish a mold or an automatic machine started with inventor t'attacchi on the tram.
I believe, but perhaps wrong, that the same concept can be translated to a complex project started with revit...
I let myself be distracted by the fact that it was mentioned inventor. said this I do not see proper how it can be even remotely compared revit to autocad: whistles with whistles... :smile:
It seems to me evident then that if autocad is considered a porgram with which anyone comes out, in the field of architecture/ediliza the cad3d are thirty years back to those of the mechanical field and why remains a mystery of faith:redface:
Albertuan
Guest
1) we are in a forum of autocad ... read back to the forum of sw.
2) we are talking about revit: architecture!
... personal note...
I left the forum a couple of years ago, just for sw users who think they can do everything with their cad and don't let other users help.
No, you can't talk to me about mechanical surface modeling and translating it into architectural context. an account is a mold an account is a building.marcof said:
then here we should start with a discussion about autocad architecture, natural complement of revit, and start with the mass gestures, styles, management of the territory, etc...
because they are tools with different peculiarities, developed for different purposes. can strutturists, designers, urbanists and architects charge project data, each for their own skills, and get a congruous model with a mechanical system?
However the question was: autocad or revit?
Please let us stay on the subject!
(I do not intend to continue debates on the sex of angels)
so, if you disagree, propise what the user could use instead of autocad or revit, for his work.
roberto
Guest
Yes, the question was about autocad and revit, but here we are on a forum of autocad and does not seem to involve more than much other users of revit....
it's nice to read skills on other software.
autocad cannot be compared to a 3d that eventually can pull you out even a render. but with autocad you can Sure. all our traditional architecture and if you're not just a disproportionate you can always use macros and everything else to speed up your work well.
If using revit you have to give up so many peculiarities and you can go to tilt when you have to resume one or more manufactured for simple variations, then it becomes a problem. also because then the return to the cad (via the export from revit) is not painless.
but, again, the time factor is very important. if one has time to "play" can try everything he wants (use study the bim "relational paradigm" is fine), if instead you have to produce results in normal working times, then you are sure that autocad never betrays you. :wink:
:tongue:
it's nice to read skills on other software.
autocad cannot be compared to a 3d that eventually can pull you out even a render. but with autocad you can Sure. all our traditional architecture and if you're not just a disproportionate you can always use macros and everything else to speed up your work well.
If using revit you have to give up so many peculiarities and you can go to tilt when you have to resume one or more manufactured for simple variations, then it becomes a problem. also because then the return to the cad (via the export from revit) is not painless.
but, again, the time factor is very important. if one has time to "play" can try everything he wants (use study the bim "relational paradigm" is fine), if instead you have to produce results in normal working times, then you are sure that autocad never betrays you. :wink:
:tongue:Albertuan
Guest
I'm sorry, I've been making the wrong five minutes.
I apologize for the answer!
I apologize for the answer!
marcof
Guest
apologies accepted for point 1) and for the next "personal note", then I rewrite of healthy plant the post I had left half this morning before leaving:smile:
on the rest of the discussion, that while being in the forum of autocad concerns revit and indirectly inventor, I would like instead to point out well how much I have written because it is rather "altered" in your post by a quoting not sure by manual, while it is very clear in my two preceding :wink:
I have certainly not pragonato the fields of application of revit and inventor, I have written, and I repeat, that both programs are not conceived to finish the work with autocad, which is certainly not able to pull you out from any blind alleys in which you find yourself with the other two (that is the building complex in one rather than the automatic machine in the other) . It's a gadget that pays tribute to you because it can always come in handy, not sure that you can complete a project that is developed for half in revit or inventor.
are produced by the philosophy completely different from autocad and as such are, in fact, incompatible with the latter. there is no need to specify, I hope, that a complex project plans to process data and information that go beyond the pure dimensional or geometric information (gis, computi metrici etc in architecture rather than fem, cinematic simulations, automatic cutting distinct for carpenters etc in mechanics)
in practice if you export from revit or inventor of a well-structured and complete project of information towards autocad you lose a lot of the information you had already processed-computated
Obviously I do not even consider the export of 3d from any mcad of an automatic machine or a complex mold towards autocad.
as to my statement that cad3ds in architecture are thirty years behind compared to mechanical ones has arisen from the statement (but it is the last of an infinite series that happened to me to read in these years) of "gp" that he wrote:
but also all the post of "roberto" that writes:
a great programmer to use a cad or to change objects families?? ?
This, however, always of "roberto", seems to me the proof that the bim are still at the age of the stone:
stairs that are not true...variants that drive you crazy. . Is it impossible to easily manage the renovations etc and everything on a parameetric cad???
... it seems to me to feel to describe an embryonic draft of a bim, not a product from 6-7000 euros.that all these gaps should be corrected using autocad still leaves me base and then, in the building field it can actually make sense that they give as a life saver along with revit also autocad. the unity of the information of the project and above all the association between a change in revit and, for example a metric compute made in autocad (external application road obviously) but on the previous version exported by revit must be a delirio stuff.
Hi.
warburg
Guest
I insert myself into this thread as the novello "final user" of revit
on the presence of autocad in the suite of revit, well, I think it is a completely logical move, not only because the design 2d in architecture is still very practiced (I say fortunately, but here we should enter other issues that do not have to do with the thread), but also because, as it was rightly observed, it is not born learned, and a client who is still learning revit in the meantime can stand out the chestnuts. I add, very personal case and I do not know how generalized, that the presence of autocad in the suite, in professional micro-studies like my, composed of me and my wife, allows me to continue to work precisely the consort with design 2d without hurt
I mean, the suite looks like a genius.
coming to the topic, I would say that revit allows you to draw with your computer. autocad, on the other hand, albeit updated, is an electronic tecnigraph (a very misused definition but still quite sensible), that is, you make in front of the monitor a simple computer version of what you were tracking on the sheet. I am not an expert in programming or software languages, but it seems to me that the difference of the bim is in the simultaneity of creation of architectural data: in a blow I create not only geometries but complex data systems (the parametric wall, with its geometry, its costs, its views, its materials, etc.): what not only of course could not be obtained on paper (the simultaneity) but not in the same way even with autocad, if not partially etc etc.
This seems to me the advantage of the bim, as if autocad had become a sub-component of a much wider system.
on the presence of autocad in the suite of revit, well, I think it is a completely logical move, not only because the design 2d in architecture is still very practiced (I say fortunately, but here we should enter other issues that do not have to do with the thread), but also because, as it was rightly observed, it is not born learned, and a client who is still learning revit in the meantime can stand out the chestnuts. I add, very personal case and I do not know how generalized, that the presence of autocad in the suite, in professional micro-studies like my, composed of me and my wife, allows me to continue to work precisely the consort with design 2d without hurt
I mean, the suite looks like a genius.
coming to the topic, I would say that revit allows you to draw with your computer. autocad, on the other hand, albeit updated, is an electronic tecnigraph (a very misused definition but still quite sensible), that is, you make in front of the monitor a simple computer version of what you were tracking on the sheet. I am not an expert in programming or software languages, but it seems to me that the difference of the bim is in the simultaneity of creation of architectural data: in a blow I create not only geometries but complex data systems (the parametric wall, with its geometry, its costs, its views, its materials, etc.): what not only of course could not be obtained on paper (the simultaneity) but not in the same way even with autocad, if not partially etc etc.
This seems to me the advantage of the bim, as if autocad had become a sub-component of a much wider system.
I personally think that technical studies in the building sector need both 2d and 3d work. the problem is that it must be well-designed so as to be fast and flexible at the same time.
substantially should integrate the revit functionality into autocad or vice versa.
substantially should integrate the revit functionality into autocad or vice versa.
roberto
Guest
of revit we have "chapter" all that you have to learn it, learn it, learn it...
but what about... Do you have to learn it? Do we have to work or study it for life? !
What if the program has limits? ?
the joints of the walls make it mad, if you close a window and open a neighbor the patch applied by the program does the bizze, the supporting walls should not be carriers and those bearing you do not know when to use. the architectural pillars merge into the wall (for what?) but the structural ones do not detach from the wall even if "not carrying" and so on unmadonnando.
He'll say, "but you can't use it" - you haven't learned enough. Okay. I'm not a scientist. So what? I have to produce something, if I don't produce, I don't eat.
then everyone is free to make his choices. with autocad you do not make the renders, of course, but you can do everything, from the reliefs required from the pregeo to the docfa, from the compilation of texts above the images (models of succession for example) to the real projects... .
I will continue to follow revit, I am paying for it!, but there will also be an evolution to make it work use and not only for university use.
I'm convinced that at some point you can't keep destroying yourself with so many mental saws...
:redface::tongue:
but what about... Do you have to learn it? Do we have to work or study it for life? !
What if the program has limits? ?
the joints of the walls make it mad, if you close a window and open a neighbor the patch applied by the program does the bizze, the supporting walls should not be carriers and those bearing you do not know when to use. the architectural pillars merge into the wall (for what?) but the structural ones do not detach from the wall even if "not carrying" and so on unmadonnando.
He'll say, "but you can't use it" - you haven't learned enough. Okay. I'm not a scientist. So what? I have to produce something, if I don't produce, I don't eat.
then everyone is free to make his choices. with autocad you do not make the renders, of course, but you can do everything, from the reliefs required from the pregeo to the docfa, from the compilation of texts above the images (models of succession for example) to the real projects... .
I will continue to follow revit, I am paying for it!, but there will also be an evolution to make it work use and not only for university use.
I'm convinced that at some point you can't keep destroying yourself with so many mental saws...
:redface::tongue: