model 3d asilo sant'elia terragni that software use? ?

[marcof]

I think with archicad you'll probably have less effort.
revit is very powerful and with those very effective forms, but it has a very steep learning curve.
Although he started using 3d modeling software in 1994, revit, at the beginning, made me feel sorry not little.
in fact the boys who come to me in the studio I make them go first with sketchup to hang themselves with the concepts of modeling 3d, then they pass to an old license of archicad (the 7.03) that I still activate, so familiar with the concept of parametric cad (almost bim) and crumble, and I just need a morning of assisted design to put them in a position to evolve themselves. only the smartest ones with the pc I bring them on revit.

Kill! If yours were a review of revit from a five-star, from the number of victims that it would be said you deserve half.
this of the learning curve of revit I believe for me will remain an unresolved mystery neo century

 

[fabio.revit]

Kill! If yours were a review of revit from a five-star, from the number of victims that it would be said you deserve half.
this of the learning curve of revit I believe for me will remain an unresolved mystery neo century

Well do not take it personally
I've been using revit for 10 years, and I think some experience on the program in real terms I've done it.
revit is a great program, with some exceptional "features" but, simply, its development is going in an imho direction not compatible with small studies like mine.
today as if you want to be competitive on the Italian market the battle is on expenses as well as on revenues, and therefore you cannot afford too fragmented workflows, in which you find yourself to have to support spending for licenses of mastodontiche suites and have several payroll operators to fully exploit the potential of the different necessary software.

As for the "learning curve", it is a mystery I fear only for you, because it is one of the most valued parameters to choose the software when you have to insert them into a commercial reality, and it is not new that revit is considered one of the architectural bims with the steepest learning curve (remaining that it is also in function of the potential of the software, so you can not take a negative figure in itself)
without entering the merit of the article, just to make an example:http://www.allthingsbim.com/2007/09/archicad-vs-revit.html

 

[GianniM]

I tried both archicad and revit, but I used them very little, just for the benefit of having tried them.
I have to say that with Archicad in 3 afternoons a house, with table setting I drew it. Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report.

with revit I have dedicated even more time, but I never managed to create something accomplished.

Obviously 10 hours of archicad and little more revit, can not be considered a great experience. Anyway, leaving rhino is another thing for other purposes.

 

[fabio.revit]

I tried both archicad and revit, but I used them very little, just for the benefit of having tried them.
I have to say that with Archicad in 3 afternoons a house, with table setting I drew it. Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent report.

with revit I have dedicated even more time, but I never managed to create something accomplished.

Obviously 10 hours of archicad and little more revit, can not be considered a great experience. Anyway, leaving rhino is another thing for other purposes.

I think I'll be back in archicad yesterday, 10...ten. .years from the last sub they proposed to return to active sub with archicad 19 to 1500 euros. 'st discounts know a little gas rod, but the convenience is there.
Mah, today I'm counting and deciding.

 

[marcof]

this of the learning curve of revit I believe for me will remain an unresolved mystery neo century

As for the "learning curve", it is a mystery I fear only for you, because it is one of the most valued parameters to choose the software when you have to insert them into a commercial reality, and it is not new that revit is considered one of the architectural bims with the steepest learning curve (remaining that it is also in function of the potential of the software, so you can not take a negative figure in itself)

I have clearly expressed myself unclear. I meant that I don't understand why even though having a steep learning curve it is then unusable for small realities precisely for development policies. I want to say that those who were doing cad in the mechanical field from autocad 2d to any parametric or contextual mcad3d have taken only advantages and substantially no learning difficulties. In the case of revit it seems to me (but I would say it is obvious that it is so, just read here on the forum) that this does not happen and you continue to prefer autocadlt.
the mystery that will remain unresolved for me is precisely why if you design single-family villas in the end you can not profitably use a bim while in mechanics who design from simple carpentry to automatic machines with tens of thousands of components can use with profit one of the many mcad3d.
Maybe this time I was able to express myself better.

 

[fabio.revit]

I have clearly expressed myself unclear. I meant that I don't understand why even though having a steep learning curve it is then unusable for small realities precisely for development policies. I want to say that those who were doing cad in the mechanical field from autocad 2d to any parametric or contextual mcad3d have taken only advantages and substantially no learning difficulties. In the case of revit it seems to me (but I would say it is obvious that it is so, just read here on the forum) that this does not happen and you continue to prefer autocadlt.
the mystery that will remain unresolved for me is precisely why if you design single-family villas in the end you can not profitably use a bim while in mechanics who design from simple carpentry to automatic machines with tens of thousands of components can use with profit one of the many mcad3d.
Maybe this time I was able to express myself better.

Okay.
but I do not say that the bim is not good for building the vileltte, anything else.
but the bim according to adesk is becoming oriented to other types of projects and markets, in which the standardization of elemnti requires (and allows) a more rigid management.
and in fact adesk is fragmenting the workflow in different software, which has a logic only for projects of certain size.
if you are planning a complex that replicates tens of times the same element makes sense to invest 4 hours of work to create or change a library element, especially if you can then manage it even at the reporting and compute level.
but you're planning a small building, it's just waste time.
the learning curve speech, instead, is reported to the fact that in small studies like mine you need software that make the external collaborator operational in relatively short periods.

 

[marcof]

you're planning a small building, it's just waste time

brutally said, if you do not plan at least a hospital distributed on 4 hectares it remains on autocadlt. This is the impression that I have always been reading the bim discussions.
I have only dementia can foolishly deprive of the indisputable advantages of the 3d a small "object" designer. we are at the point that you do before and better to design a cottage in 3d with solidworks that with a bim. autocad3d we do not even put it in class because any mcad3d of 15 years ago and two orders of magnitude more efficient.

the learning curve speech, instead, is reported to the fact that in small studies like mine you need software that make the external collaborator operational in relatively short periods.

and let's figure out the bim that have the learning curve in slight slope... No point.

 

[fabio.revit]

brutally said, if you do not plan at least a hospital distributed on 4 hectares it remains on autocadlt. This is the impression that I have always been reading the bim discussions.
I have only dementia can foolishly deprive of the indisputable advantages of the 3d a small "object" designer. we are at the point that you do before and better to design a cottage in 3d with solidworks that with a bim. autocad3d we do not even put it in class because any mcad3d of 15 years ago and two orders of magnitude more efficient.



and let's figure out the bim that have the learning curve in slight slope... No point.

Honestly, I have to show you that you have a very arrogant and indisposable attitude.
and perhaps it is better if you avoid giving demente to people who are discussing politely.
said this you left a little too much for the bribe: I did not say that the bim is useless, but that it is not effective the audesk-revit approach to the bim, which is quite different from what you support I wrote.
I am talking about revit, software that I know very well as I use it massively for 10 years, and I must also consider how much it costs to teach me to use it to a collaborator that maybe (justly) after it was formed it goes for its way, since at the end of the month I also have to make the accounts square, while you are doing mental pippe on the bim (which then, being you user of solidworks I know that otherwise).
Therefore, I repeat myself to scans of misunderstandings: the bim approach to the architectural design is useful, the direction that took adesk with revit imho is not effective for small studies in the local Italian market.

 

[Superpippo33]

quoto in toto and I hereby subscribe to what has been said by fabio.revit
If you need a vehicle to go shopping, buy a station wagon, maybe it's okay with a minicar, you're not going to buy a tir.
choices must be made according to their needs, no excluded, it is so difficult to understand!

 

[marcof]

imho Just dei deduction can skilfully privilegesof the indisputable advantages of the 3d a small "object" designer.

Honestly, I have to show you that you have a very arrogant and indisposable attitude.
and perhaps it is better if you avoid giving demente to people who are discussing politely

Honestly, I must point out that I am usually attributing to my little clarity the incomprehension that can be born in the interlocutora. But I don't mind writing that you just don't understand what I wrote.
the above dements are not you and any other interlocutors. you would have no chance with your work to deprive of the advantages of the 3d "intelligent" the designers of "small" objects (have you read that I wrote it?). the dements are those of the autodesk that want to relegate in the prehistory of the 2d of autocad hundreds of thousands of small or microscopic design studies.
the association between the adjective "demente" and the verb "privare" left no doubt about the interpretation of my sentence.
You and the others are the "designer of small objects" or the victims of those dements of self-desk.
I am 100% sure that now reasoning is even more crystalline than it was before.

said this you left a little too much for the bribe: I did not say that the bim is useless,

and I have not given you this thought, that in fact you have not read, so the clarification is completely unnecessary

but that it is not effective the audesk-revit approach to the bim, which is quite different from what you support I wrote.

Here too I must point out that you have understood very badly. we talked about bim usability for small design studies and:

1. revit among the bim is the fastest to learn
2. despite this the small realities struggle to use it or just cannot afford to do it for the reasons you explained.
3. if revit is the one with the steepest curve figuraimoci what happens with those that the curve have much less steep
4. I concluded that the bim for a geometra or a single architect are useless tools. if you want precise, repeating me, that I am because for the great learning difficulties prevent to quickly expand the network of designers inside the small studio.

Incidentally, that the approach of aautodesk to the bim is not effective I have been supporting it for years, since for years it is written that the individual architect for the villino does first to use autocadlt

I am talking about revit, software that I know very well as I use it massively for 10 years, and I must also consider how much it costs to teach me to use it to a collaborator that maybe (justly) after it was formed it goes on its way, since at the end of the month I also have to make the accounts square, while you are doing mental pippe on the bim.

My boys aren't mental pimps. you in this thread and hundreds of other users written for years of the difficulties of real implementation of revit in small or very small projects and posts with various difficulties and possible are all in its forum. Just read them. for these very small revit realities is in fact useless or even harmful (read: you put too much time and go out market because those with the tecnigraph do the same thing but in half time)

Therefore, I repeat myself to scans of misunderstandings: the bim approach to the architectural design is useful, the direction that took adesk with revit imho is not effective for small studies in the local Italian market.

I confirm to you that I think the same thing since revit came out I started reading the first discussions on usenet and I fear that it is not a problem of the Italian market, but precisely the fact that for small studies it is unusable.

that then, being you user of solidworks I know you work in a completely different context

from the software point of view I would say "and fortunately!" :smile:. .
work in a context where you can buy a full license of catia or nx by spending tens of thousands of euros and design an airbus or a carriola in both cases enjoying the advantages of parametric 3d design, exploiting in both cases the possibilities of exploiting the metadata of the project. Obviously apart from the waste of resources, the wheelbarrow with draws projects without any difficulty. work in a context where with 6000 euros you buy solidedge, solidworks, inventor etc and you can design that wheelbarrow or machine with 100,000 components. Obviously those of the bim believe it is acceptable to make such a complex software to make it usable only by megastuds.
the same consider acceptable to relegate to the prehistory of the 2d for who knows how many years still all architects, geometries, civil engineers etc. that they have seen use once a software like solidworks and would like to have something so powerful, immediate and slender without getting old in front of the monitor on a bim for trying to create, that I know, a family of parametric doors.

you wrote that using revit

you're planning a small building, it's just waste time

and I have written that therefore it is useless (by adding "dannous") and we ask the circle back to my half star to associate with your description of the approach to revit if it was a review.

 

[Cristallo]

Obviously those of the bim believe it is acceptable to make such a complex software to make it usable only by megastuds.
the same consider acceptable to relegate to the prehistory of the 2d for who knows how many years still all architects, geometries, civil engineers etc. that they have seen use once a software like solidworks and would like to have something so powerful, immediate and slender without getting old in front of the monitor on a bim for trying to create, that I know, a family of parametric doors.

Hello marcof
I don't think the main difficulty of the building bim is the "power" of the software. I think it's more in the nature of the designed object. as I have written several times, the design of a building is a little like the dress of a tailor.
unique, unrepeatable, peculiar and uniquely linked to the individual case.
when you have a project with a large extension, maybe you can reuse parts or portions and going to vary a part is undeniable that there are advantages in getting all the updated realtime model.
but (extremely, to clarify the problems):
I have a building with 16 rectangular pillars. while we are in the process of design comes the arch and says: "These two pillars make them hexagonal, because I know more beautiful." (not for function, nor for needs, only because they are beautiful!)
I have to create an ex novo family for 2 hexagonal pillars, and therefore create the family of the armor for the hexagonal pillar.
I'm finally gonna hit them and... I will never use them again in any other project because let's face it all, s hexagonal pillars are a dick in an eye!
I believe that the real difficulty is in this, and we are within the framework of the new construction.
Let's not forget (like the work I've been doing now) putting in bim a building of the '600, which has undergone 450 years of superfection, modification, building abuse and what else.

among other things I asked people who do high-level craft bim (society participated from university) and my question "discussed but then the executive of the node if I want it hinged or semi-category, how do you represent it in bim?" answered me candidly "if you need the executive detail of the node drawings in acad and insert the relative link"!!!
or they told me (and teach) a chestnut, or I will always be bound to acad!

 

[fabio.revit]

Honestly, I must point out that I am usually attributing to my little clarity the incomprehension that can be born in the interlocutora. But I don't mind writing that you just don't understand what I wrote.
the above dements are not you and any other interlocutors. you would have no chance with your work to deprive of the advantages of the 3d "intelligent" the designers of "small" objects (have you read that I wrote it?). the dements are those of the autodesk that want to relegate in the prehistory of the 2d of autocad hundreds of thousands of small or microscopic design studies.
the association between the adjective "demente" and the verb "privare" left no doubt about the interpretation of my sentence.
You and the others are the "designer of small objects" or the victims of those dements of self-desk.
I am 100% sure that now reasoning is even more crystalline than it was before.



and I have not given you this thought, that in fact you have not read, so the clarification is completely unnecessary



Here too I must point out that you have understood very badly. we talked about bim usability for small design studies and:

1. revit among the bim is the fastest to learn
2. despite this the small realities struggle to use it or just cannot afford to do it for the reasons you explained.
3. if revit is the one with the steepest curve figuraimoci what happens with those that the curve have much less steep
4. I concluded that the bim for a geometra or a single architect are useless tools. if you want precise, repeating me, that I am because for the great learning difficulties prevent to quickly expand the network of designers inside the small studio.

Incidentally, that the approach of aautodesk to the bim is not effective I have been supporting it for years, since for years it is written that the individual architect for the villino does first to use autocadlt



My boys aren't mental pimps. you in this thread and hundreds of other users written for years of the difficulties of real implementation of revit in small or very small projects and posts with various difficulties and possible are all in its forum. Just read them. for these very small revit realities is in fact useless or even harmful (read: you put too much time and go out market because those with the tecnigraph do the same thing but in half time)




I confirm to you that I think the same thing since revit came out I started reading the first discussions on usenet and I fear that it is not a problem of the Italian market, but precisely the fact that for small studies it is unusable.



from the software point of view I would say "and fortunately!" :smile:. .
work in a context where you can buy a full license of catia or nx by spending tens of thousands of euros and design an airbus or a carriola in both cases enjoying the advantages of parametric 3d design, exploiting in both cases the possibilities of exploiting the metadata of the project. Obviously apart from the waste of resources, the wheelbarrow with draws projects without any difficulty. work in a context where with 6000 euros you buy solidedge, solidworks, inventor etc and you can design that wheelbarrow or machine with 100,000 components. Obviously those of the bim believe it is acceptable to make such a complex software to make it usable only by megastuds.
the same consider acceptable to relegate to the prehistory of the 2d for who knows how many years still all architects, geometries, civil engineers etc. that they have seen use once a software like solidworks and would like to have something so powerful, immediate and slender without getting old in front of the monitor on a bim for trying to create, that I know, a family of parametric doors.

you wrote that using revit


and I have written that therefore it is useless (by adding "dannous") and we ask the circle back to my half star to associate with your description of the approach to revit if it was a review.

It's the first time I almost fight with someone who's right to me
However personally I do not believe that the problem is in different software, but only in the fact that every software house claims that its product is the panacea of every evil.
adesk should stop dealing revit as the ultimate tool: it is not, as I am not allplan, archicad etc.
when you mature a bit of experience with different software (and if you consider that my first pc was a vic20 in 1984 a little water under the bridges I saw it pass) you realize that every work has its own tool, and that when a tool no longer suits it.
adesk is developing a very powerful suite for certain types of work, and consequently also changes commercial and marketing policies, and this inevitably will make you lose users who do not need this kind of tool.