RobDraw Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 I thought this warranted a new thread. RobDraw said: In another forum today there was a brief discussion about how it was thought that Revit would cure some bad habits. It now seems that it doesn't, Revit just gives them more ways to mess things up. tzframpton said: Two things about that discussion. 1st, "cure" should never be used. That's impossible and is not a realistic expectation. So it shouldn't even be a discussion... the real discussion is that you can manage things a lot easier with Revit when it comes to standards. Columns? Lets see anybody try and use a Mechanical Equipment family as a column. Electrical Panel equipment? Try and use a generic model family and connect electrical circuits. Text or Dimension Styles? Try an singular manual override - oh wait you can't. This is the stance I was referring to on the topic. 2nd, Revit doesn't give people more ways to mess things up, as long as they're using Revit in the way it was meant to be used. In fact, I see ways on messing up as the exact opposite in a lot of cases, but it's imperative that you're using Revit as much to the manner it was intended as humanly possible, and within reason for time and budget constraints. I had a good story today actually. Last week I constrained some 2D Bolt Detail Components 2" off an edge of a structural connection plate because I knew it was going to change. The 16" sq. connection plate was a guess. Sure enough it needed to be 12" sq. Edited the Family and the detail updated right along with it. The Bolts shifted in the Live Section on the plan. Small example yes, but this can really be useful in all facets of the design model. I guess it just depends on which "bad habits" people are referring to. Using the associative Section and Detail Callout heads does in fact cure bad habits. Don't have to worry about that anymore. But there are always those little things that are impossible to cure, obviously. PS: Which forum? Swamp, or RFO? Just curious was all. Quote
RobDraw Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 Cure was just a figure of speech. Like you said, given the constraints of Revit, some things just can't be messed with. I don't want to get into a lot specifics but when you are dealing with low level inputters, they find ways. One example; not rounding offsets to the nearest inch. A lot of this has to do with inadequate training and lack of established standards but both are being corrected. If these people continue with bad habits in the Revit environment, they won't be working in Revit and since we are doing less and less AutoCAD, where these bad habits are tolerated in the name of "It looks good enough.", they may find themselves being let go. BTW, it was at the Swamp. Quote
tzframpton Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 There's only a handful of guys on here who know Revit well enough to comment, haha. Good thread to start, though. I'd like to see every else's comments. Quote
tzframpton Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 RobDraw said: One example; not rounding offsets to the nearest inch.Revit doesn't advertise in curing anything related to user control or user input. Again, this isn't the best example. (by Offsets, I'm assuming you mean duct or pipe?) There are things that cannot be overridden, however. Like you cannot force a Family to do something it wasn't intended to do. Or you cannot manually override a single Text, Label, or Dimension style. Or you cannot have any duplication whatsoever with Sheet Numbering, and Reference Callout Bubbles/Sections/Views. Things like this is what Revit advertises to cure bad habits. Quote
RobDraw Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 I think you are missing my point. I am not Revit bashing. I am bashing inputters that don't play well in the sandbox. Quote
nestly Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 ... does the type of car make someone a better driver? Quote
Mike_Taylor Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 tzframpton said: Revit doesn't advertise in curing anything related to user control or user input. Again, this isn't the best example. (by Offsets, I'm assuming you mean duct or pipe?) There are things that cannot be overridden, however. Like you cannot force a Family to do something it wasn't intended to do. Or you cannot manually override a single Text, Label, or Dimension style. Or you cannot have any duplication whatsoever with Sheet Numbering, and Reference Callout Bubbles/Sections/Views. Things like this is what Revit advertises to cure bad habits. Can you not derive a new family from an existing on and override some of these? By no means am I an adamant Revit user but I have done some research. (Playing the devils advocate ) Everything I understand, assuming everything is set up correctly, Revit simply reduces and limits the amount of input in terms of standards and common practice, in turn reducing the amount of human error. Am I correct in thinking this? Quote
tzframpton Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Mike_Taylor said: Can you not derive a new family from an existing on and override some of these?No sir. In fact, once you set the Category for Revit Families, you can't undo it once it's saved and closed. Mike_Taylor said: By no means am I an adamant Revit user but I have done some research. (Playing the devils advocate)No prob!! Keep 'em coming. It's all open discussion. Mike_Taylor said: Everything I understand, assuming everything is set up correctly, Revit simply reduces and limits the amount of input in terms of standards and common practice, in turn reducing the amount of human error. Am I correct in thinking this?Reduce is a good word. That's exactly what it does. It reduces errors in all facets of design as long as you use Revit in the manner it was intended. Not only that, Revit can also reduce the need to draw or edit twice, because of the natural associativity of everything. AutoCAD is an extension of the hand drafting board. It's a free-form design tool. Revit is a purpose-driven design tool. Quote
RobDraw Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 Let me say that the bulk of my experience in AutoCAD was pretty much entirely 2D. I did play with ACADMEP along with some simple 3D drawing and that little experience actually helped me with the transition to Revit. Just like in AutoCAD, strong standards and a strong template is key. Without those, a lot of bad CAD can happen. Some things become dummy proof that weren't in AutoCAD but Revit requires a level of expertise that AutoCAD, the way my office uses it, does not. My beef right now is really with my work situation. The now former CAD manager did not know what he was doing. He was very talented in some ways but did not belong in that position. Revit has had a hard time getting started in my office because he really dropped the ball on maintaining and establishing new standards. The lower level inputters were not properly trained in either platform and allowed to continue doing things that were just wrong, causing major problems with models. When someone does not even coordinate with themselves, it's a major problem. In this case, the problem comes from multiple issues and compounds it. Quote
tzframpton Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 RobDraw said: The lower level inputters were not properly trained in either platform and allowed to continue doing things that were just wrong, causing major problems with models. When someone does not even coordinate with themselves, it's a major problem. In this case, the problem comes from multiple issues and compounds it.Is this from inexperienced Revit production designers? If so, you gotta let them learn the program. Revit is a beast... and is not as easy as LINE, PLINE, COPY, ARRAY, CIRCLE, Insert > Block, ARC, etc.... Quote
RobDraw Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 100% so, Tanner. The inputters being tasked with input are not at a design level and have little experience/training with Revit, never mind experience with the physical world that we are trying to represent. I am making a play for a support position that is so needed so that I can teach these people how it's done at an entry level and make our product where it needs to be. Quote
tzframpton Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Gotcha. Yeah you are either all in or none at all with Revit. Not so with AutoCAD... it can be used as simple or advanced as you want to make it. Start contacting those resellers for training!! haha Quote
RobDraw Posted September 12, 2013 Author Posted September 12, 2013 Actually, we have a new guy that really knows his stuff and is in the right position to help us out. He has implemented a lot of training since his first day, huge. He needs support and a go between him and the users. I'm making a major play for that position that needs to be created. I'm tired of seeing "Bad CAD" from the place I work at and know I can help change it. Quote
Organic Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Of course Revit doesn't cure bad CAD, no CAD program can. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.