Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 58

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

  1.    #31
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    11,164
    Current Local Time
    12:31 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I'm always happy to entertain! No worries there, from me.

    And I'm glad you aren't intimidated, since no one wrote anything intended to be intimidating.

    And it's comical you would point out me being off topic, since (again) you've added zero value to this post, or the forum as a whole. I can at least point to a response that WAS on topic, from me. Can you?

    Spoiler: nope!

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

  2.    #32
    Member scourdx's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 4, 2013
    Posts
    59
    Current Local Time
    10:31 PM

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Unfortunately our design team really have issue with model part. It need a huge overhaul to make the process more streamline and less understanding what cause the error. I did a slideshow on modeling tool and they haven't really change much since 2010. Some of my adaptive component I've used is pretty straight forward with pattern but Revit refuse to let me proceed with finishing the model. It said it has too many edge and no other explanation. This is why a lot of designers are using Rhino and Sketchup. Autodesk need to be better at this and not simply give us the same tool and no progress.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stay the same.png 
Views:	70 
Size:	105.7 KB 
ID:	39201

  3.    #33
    Member Cyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 10, 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    499
    Current Local Time
    06:31 AM

    8 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    We didn't think it was the right time to dive into the guts of where we've been investing for the future on that post, but will get into this topic more as we engage deeper with the community. Sorry it didn't immediately resonate with you.

    The snippet above is a description of what we believe is a pending shift in how design tools serve design teams. It's about focusing the product experience around the project outcomes - occupancy needs, cost, carbon impact, social impact, etc - and using integrated analysis to ensure that the design team is aware of the tradeoffs across those dimensions throughout the design process.

    I'm not chiming in here in an attempt to deep dive on this topic - unless you all really want to do so - I'm here to listen and address any areas where we've been unclear.

    -Kyle
    That's great and all, but if that's where all the focus is going then I'd be concerned. While occupancy needs, carbon impact, social impact etc are important factors in the design process and are variables that we need to know, the vast majority of residential projects that we work on don't take those issues into account. For better or worse, the main focus during the design process is almost always maximising the number of units on a site - and these future design tools won't help much in this regard. While generative design is likely to be useful here, it's still in the early stages as far as Revit is concerned. Cost data is useful, sure, but as architects we don't provide cost data to the client as it's done by a separate discipline (who most certainly won't be using Revit!).

    I can't speak for larger international practices who may be using those kind of tools on their projects, but for us they're of really limited value. Perhaps this is where Autodesk wants to position Revit - as a design & analysis tool for large scale architecture practices.
    Certainly over the past number of years the additions to Revit for small and medium size practices have been very limited and it feels like this is a market that Autodesk doesn't want Revit to be in, especially as the costs keep increasing substantially.

    We have had a similar experience with NBS Specification software in recent years - we used to subscribe to it as it's very useful software. NBS then overhauled their software moving to SaaS (I think Chorus is the newest version), substantially increased the price and mandating that you 'lock in' your renewal 90 days in advance. As a small practice, those are terms we just can't sign up to, so we've stopped using it. Which is a shame because it's really great for specification writing. The strategy that NBS are persuing makes me think that they're also only interested in the large scale practices.

    Focussing on the future is fine, but why aren't the current tools that we have getting fixed? Like railings or site tools. It takes such a long time to work with site layouts in Revit using floors, why don't we have decent site tools yet? There needs to be a balance between forward thinking design methods, and improving/replacing the tools we have now so that we can deal with the current issues better. I genuinly used to be excited about new versions of Revit and using new features, but in the past 5 years there's been so little that I've lost interest. I used to be passionate about Revit but it feels like we're paying more each year and getting nothing worthwhile in return.

  4.    #34
    Member Damo's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 2, 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    152
    Current Local Time
    06:31 AM

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyus View Post
    For better or worse, the main focus during the design process is almost always maximising the number of units on a site - and these future design tools won't help much in this regard. ....... Cost data is useful, sure, but as architects we don't provide cost data to the client as it's done by a separate discipline (who most certainly won't be using Revit!).
    I agree

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyus View Post
    I can't speak for larger international practices who may be using those kind of tools on their projects, but for us they're of really limited value. Perhaps this is where Autodesk wants to position Revit - as a design & analysis tool for large scale architecture practices.
    Certainly over the past number of years the additions to Revit for small and medium size practices have been very limited and it feels like this is a market that Autodesk doesn't want Revit to be in, especially as the costs keep increasing substantially.
    I can totally relate to this, as a small UK practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyus View Post
    I genuinly used to be excited about new versions of Revit and using new features, but in the past 5 years there's been so little that I've lost interest. I used to be passionate about Revit but it feels like we're paying more each year and getting nothing worthwhile in return.
    Us too. I can remember the excitement generated on this Forum and AUGI every March / April when the next release was due to be released. I still haven't bothered installing Revit 2021, partially because of a slow down (Covid-19) but mainly I'm starting to loose the excitement of Revit (and Autodesk's pricing structure -v- benefit).

  5.    #35
    Member
    Join Date
    March 13, 2012
    Posts
    79
    Current Local Time
    01:31 AM

    6 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    I'm not chiming in here in an attempt to deep dive on this topic - unless you all really want to do so - I'm here to listen and address any areas where we've been unclear.
    -Kyle
    First of all - thank you for jumping into the Lion's Den!

    I'd like to know if you think your pricing system is partly to blame. You've got a boatload of products in the AEC collection, yet many architects will only ever use autocad and revit. Revit is $3160 CAD and AutoCAD is $2205. The AEC Collection is $3,865. How much sense does that make - that's saying that to own and support development of the two software packages it's over $5,000, but if I get the entire suite of tools which includes 3DS Max, Navisworks, Infraworks, and even more early-development software that I would probably never buy... it's only $700? There's a lot of stuff in the AEC that many professionals will never use... and I know you guys know this - for some reason you offer the special Revit LT / AutoCAD LT combo but you don't have the same offer for the full versions.

    I simply do not believe that to support development of one software is only $3100 but to support a dozen it's $3800. To an outside observer it would seem like the funds we pay for the AEC collection will go to the development of niche software such as FormIt (which should have been an enhancement of Revit's Massing tool/interface), Vehicle Tracker, etc. As an architect it irks me that so much of the money I pay for the software I use could be used for stuff that... isn't the software I use. I then end up with the impression that the software is crazy-expensive and almost no development happens. So there's only two paths forward: make it cost what it should for the amount of development it gets, or give it the amount of development it should get for what it costs.

    And that's not even to broach the subject of this new cash-grab/development to shunt people off of multi-user licenses and onto named users, which further increases costs for many offices. I manage an office of around 90 people and one of the benefits of the previous model was that those who have to do small one-off exercises done by non-architecture staff they could just use a license for an afternoon. Now, we have to pay $2K+ just in case they want to open the software once a month. For 15 planning staff, that's pretty expensive - and no, LT is not an option, and in a busy office you can't always rely on juniors or others to carry out those exercises.

    Last point - can you please please please please please put some serious resources into the development of some kind of sheeting/drawing set interface. As I said in another post - a lot of our communication revolves around the production and issuing of drawing sets. If I make a new sheet, I shouldn't have to rely on third-party plugins just to be able to slot it into the middle of a bunch of other sheets. No software that deals with publishing works this way, and for Revit in 2020 to still not even have automatic sheet numbers (let alone drawing organization) is just straight-up crazy. That's not even to get into creating an actual paper area (much like autocad or any other publishing software) so that a random drawing element doesn't throw off the publishing of a set. This is something that I can promise you would be welcomed by all users of the software (not just architects). I'm happy to jump on a screenshare/call with autodesk staff to go over the merits of how other software does this - I did a call like this back before PDF insertion was introduced (partly because one of my Ideas was highly voted) and it seemed very beneficial for all involved.
    Last edited by guitarchitect; August 1st, 2020 at 05:05 PM.

  6.    #36
    Moderator Robin Deurloo's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 7, 2011
    Location
    Rotterdam, Holland
    Posts
    1,635
    Current Local Time
    07:31 AM

    4 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyus View Post
    Focussing on the future is fine, but why aren't the current tools that we have getting fixed? Like railings or site tools. It takes such a long time to work with site layouts in Revit using floors, why don't we have decent site tools yet? There needs to be a balance between forward thinking design methods, and improving/replacing the tools we have now so that we can deal with the current issues better. I genuinly used to be excited about new versions of Revit and using new features, but in the past 5 years there's been so little that I've lost interest. I used to be passionate about Revit but it feels like we're paying more each year and getting nothing worthwhile in return.

    YES, fix stuff that is broken or works in a weird way, before adding new stuff that, to be honest, 99% of the 'normal' Revit users is never going to use Generative Design while 90% of them (not talking about MEP and structural guys of course) is going to use Railings and Site at some point.


    Quote Originally Posted by guitarchitect View Post
    Last point - can you please please please please please put some serious resources into the development of some kind of sheeting/drawing set interface.
    To add to that, I would REALLY like to be able to make a PDF or print of a portion of my view (I can select with a window) to scale, instead of having to choose from either the entire view of the bit that is visible in my view.
    Last edited by Robin Deurloo; August 3rd, 2020 at 02:55 PM.

  7.    #37
    Moderator snowyweston's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 21, 2010
    Location
    C.LONDON
    Posts
    4,443
    Current Local Time
    06:31 AM

    10 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Firstly, good to see we’re discussing this here – and always lovely to see our Autodesk contributors muck in – proverbial hat tip chaps!

    Second,
    I was quick to knee-jerk when the AEC article reporting on the letter popped up on my Twit timeline – not because I disagree(d) with the content, (mostly) far from it - but I did find – and didn’t guard my feeling, that the opportunity to garner more support was missed by, what can only be described as, a clandestine class of London outfits.

    “But you’re just upset you weren’t invited to the party Kieren” I hear you smirk, and yeah, I am – as I’m sure many others who would’ve signed their name to such a letter are - but not because i wanna be in some kind of gang, but more because I actually do believe in collective actions - that involve everyone (or at least as many as can be included)

    You need only look here to see those contributing to this chat represent outfits not on "the list". Factor in those adding comment after comment on the Dezeen article, and then all the hundreds on the Facebook post – then extend that to reach out to all the other disciplines and industries… and all of a sudden 25 “big” Architecture companies could have easily been 250+ AECO clients. But no. Alas, the expensive* audits & quibbling about 22M in sales made me yawn diddums.


    So, seeing as there are enough fractures (and having just linked to this read on another tweet thread running off on its own tangent) I’m going to wade in here with my own thoughts & prayers about how/where Autodesk can (not necessarily should) take Revit – all the while appreciating my requirements or desires might well differ from yours.


    1. Drop the collections immediately and revert to products. Those who read on will no doubt find contradiction in latter paragraphs (I’ve not written this chronologically) as I tend to steer toward the “put a lot of stuff in Revit” camp – but conversely, bundling tools and functions customers never ask for is like parsley sprinkled on chips or the wilty salad you get with a cheap curry – leave it out, please, I don’t want it, I won’t eat it, you wasted time sourcing and prepping that - so save me 10p and we will save the world from suffering one extra plastic bag… and so it is with the collections. The BDSU & BDSP used to make some money sense, when Revit was somewhat reasonable, but when the price of Revit standalone rode par with an AEC collection, something was clearly up – and sure, it’s my/our fault for not leveraging 3DRepo or InfraWorks like we could (?!) or not dropping PowerDraft licenses to exploit the Autocad ones we now have – but wait, those aren’t concurrent uses, and as it is with the bundled 3DS, the folk we’ve got Revit’ing aren’t doing Max-work, so having that at hand is of ZERO benefit.

    So, back to core-tools with enhancements and addins. please. Heck, I’d even asset strip back to Arch/Structure/MEP verticals to wind back the costs – and would even welcome (!?) a degree of game-style micro-transactions for bolt-ons… at least I/we could manage that (only idiots let their kids loose on Candy Crush) whereas at the moment we’re trapped into being the sucker fan-client who buys the premium edition on pre-release – and we don’t even get a flashy steelcase or figurine toy for our troubles.

    2. Further to the whole product-offer-proposition, the whole delivery and deployment architecture of Autodesk software projects needs taking out the back and shooting. Autodesk Desktop App.-Thing & Store? Double-tap-tap. The former is crud, I only suffer it at home, it is not used in the office (there are others here with far more to add on that) but ultimately/surely it’s a failing of the mess of recent years, with so many scatty hotfixes, subscription exclusives and, yes version-(b)locking. I know they are by no means angels with respect of price-gouging, but at least Adobe make this relatively seamless with their CC platform’s frontend.

    3. (more on platform/product) We need a true Revit (.rvt & .rfa) file viewer (standalone) and viewing mode (for free of license) use- that needs to be leaner, unconfused by alerts and messages (could all be quietly parked in a .log) and provide any operator, especially those with no experience with the Revit UI a clear and methodical means to interrogate/query the file in hand – where files are enabled/prepped where certain views and values are only exposed (to the viewer) ala Enscape’s favourite views

    4. Update (not overhaul) of UI to support the desires of users (and managers) as customised, personal workspace, i.e.
    a. Visual; dark mode, high-contrast, and alt. schemes

    b. Docking, splitting, fly-outs, flexible (content aware) resizeable – all of the best things we see in contemporary complimentary applications (Navisworks, Photoshop,Rhino,etc)

    c. user/manager. office/-company, project/team, configurations for restricted/accessible features, custom toolbar command creation (I used to mention Autocad’s CUI here, but having started to play with Rhino here more, think of that instead. There may even be better?)

    d. (Further to above) manager/user level interfaces – I can NTFS permission people all day long (note: I don't want to) but – seeing as we’re headed the “user experience” route, how about the at-desk-Revit-client experience respects that it’s being driven by a person – so, not only allowing them to load up their favourite Hello Kitty/Doom Slayer themed skin, but also – oh look, on this job they’re only permitted to view the sheets when they open (restricted for edit, as above) the project files - but on another they can fiddle to their hearts content with the global/shared parameters?

    i. This level of control might seem draconian, or miscalculated by someone who doesn’t have (or desire) hundreds of projects/thousands of people to look over at the same time – but we manage this elsewhere on other platforms well enough – so why not in Revit? Okay, I saw noise about a management-tier account type (and cost on) and that’s obviously not what I’m talking about (there should be no cost increase for such control, unless it is paired with equivalent cost reduction as requirements are stripped from users – i.e. 10% less for dropping the MEP tools, 10% saved from never launching energy analysis, 20% off the bill if you never hit the Revit render button… if there’s going to be further commodification of Revit, and let’s pretend there won’t be, then it needs to work both ways.

    e. …and again with the personable experience: even “simple” things, like project/person differentiation

    i. (saved) personal configurations of (file-specific) browser configs, (i.e. project browser settings as part of client, not file, so that they don’t sync’through to others)

    ii. And essentially the same for all user-choice things – so that more config. choices move toward the operator and away from the file, (doing away with user-ViewTemplates, etc) – though I imagine this could be handled fairly robustly with a “scheme/theme” approach – i.e. thin lines on/off isn’t enough, but suggests there is a way to custom/ootb hotswitch

    f. This will probably get of groan or two – especially as I will paint myself a hypocrite for the comparison – but still, someone, somewhere must use the smile-face feedback mechanisms of O365? I don’t, but I love me a good bugsplat from time to time – and sure, I know most end up in no place - but again, as a user-centric platform – perhaps in 2020 and onward, in addition to having a ? in every dialog (that can provide instant contextual tooltip help or, let us pray, at least direct folk to somewhere useful!) perhaps we also need an instant feedback loop in-screen? A hundred thousand sad faces a week generated from the filter dialog alone would be better attention-grabbing for development than a handful of not-so-tired-enough-to-not-write forumites?

    5. As oft mentioned (akin to Aaron’s #2) opening up / levelling of all (current) categories global behaviours with regards visibility appearances (standard and filtered), scheduling, tagging etc


    a. As I started to write this, the twee-chat that led to this post saw me querying into the Archicad behaviour of “categories”, being particularly wary of a (user) free-for-all - to have it clarified that yes, new creations can be locked/restricted – and I like the sound of that A LOT. Instead of insisting (and sometimes failing) to have folk fill in the Keynote (in our case CAWS) and other spec. param. fields when creating/introducing new elements – such a system could insist one is picked. Nothing to guarantee folk don’t pick the wrong thing, but still, better than empty property fields.

    b. And so goes for lookup-lists… ala the out-of-date uniformat .txt shipped for assembly codes, the (not fit for purpose at a family level) omniclass .txt file, etc… these should be – and would require wider, partner/affiliate sign-up – go-to-source callups (see on-demand loading later) to ensure “live and correct”… although that does create versioning issues for long-run projects, but then that could be handled with lock-offs on clauses (by instruction/user commit)

    6. Similar to above, opening up of all (present) parameters for use in any manner required by the user – except those restrictions that do make sense (i.e. non-variable geometric or numerical quantities per instance of model groups, etc) – including “behind the scenes” properties, even as read-only, even if hidden behind a user-elect “expose extended parameters” gotcha-alert.

    7. Groups – need to be more robust, but also more flexible (see: material changes breaking geometry) – and need to introduce some idea of sub-groups for employing/meshing concepts from family editor environment of optioneering within them (I dare say like a dynamic .dwg block)

    a. There’s clearly something wrong with how groups (and generally all instance-quantity-heavy calculations) work – and something screams proxies at me, especially after seeing how other tools like Microstation and Rhino handle updates to geometry of a placed element – “update instance 1 of definition A placed at XYZ” is surely (?) find-replace of strings of data within a container – why does Revit need to chew on it so long? Which leads me to…

    8. Performance generally – beyond jumping on the multi-core bandwagon – and inviting derision from many I’m sure but can we have a “data-light” and other kind of other work-profiles? As in, just like with worksets where we elect to choose “load” into local memory elements from a central work-shared repository, can we not also ask our session to disregard certain calculations? Perhaps “calculate room volumes” is the better metaphor? But either way, often it does feel like Revit’s doing things in the background people don’t need it – and I know I know “better to have…” cos’ who wants to get caught with the sheets unloaded when someone comes over to your desk to look at X… but if you’re that type of person, you’ll have open-loaded sheets already – whereas if someone is gonna be plugging away at modelling only for a chunk of the day – spare them the schedule calcs. Adding up in the background… I don’t know how to better explain it than draw comparison to LOD in games (I play a lot of open world free-roam stuff) where the performance optimisation for view-draw-distance and context loading is often breathtaking.

    9. Annotation – repair, or remake, all the “quirks”

    a. “magic line” families (ala section heads)

    b. expose EVERY annotative element to users’ whim (see stair run label)

    c. create “master” styles/libraries that span .rvt and .rfa files – ala seed files (which I don’t understand nearly enough to use as a reference – and could, I can only imagine, apply to more things than annotation alone - but I’m thinking of it now so…)

    d. and the “simple” things, “just” done right, like do not break lines behind text and tags with fills and wipeouts, when sending to .dwg

    10. Direct backend connectors of .rvt file format (I’m not going to just should API into the air, because…) without requiring go-between formats/export for all of the most common platforms in active use by industry – here’s looking at you Excel & PowerBI. I know there are tools for use to satisfy this want-to-use-case, but…

    11. Autodesk are to actively appraise and audit the most popular addins and workflow enabling hack-tricks being used by the community and, on periodic basis, acquire, or re-write into the raw engine/code the same.

    a. I know it’s easy for me to ask and in the same breath casually threaten the incomes of those who commoditise the development of such addins – and the counterpoint would be “A’desk would get it wrong” or “this would bloat Revit further” – and I hear that, but if these were elective expansions, vetted by and for each company, you could run lean or heavy depending on your use case – like Dynamo – so maybe that’s an alternative approach? Revit opens up to a format of working where packages can be readily injected? I’m not sure, I’d rather more-at-core, for consistent user experience (see package version variables across Dynamo versions in itself giving cause for further addins just to track that… etc…)

    12. AOB?






    *Q.
    I’ve been audited and found it no hardship at all. Again, I’m not a multi-site office, let alone a trans-international one, and have a fairly small license pool to administrate – so maybe it really is as crazy expensive a some are making out? Perhaps this is where my lean toward the world of thinking “if you’re doing no harm” open-book accounting is nave, I don’t know.
    Last edited by snowyweston; August 2nd, 2020 at 10:24 PM.

  8.    #38
    Administrator Twiceroadsfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 7, 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    11,164
    Current Local Time
    12:31 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Great post, Kieren. While we disagree on some of the minutia, the general spirit of a lot of what you bring up is rock solid.

    WRT getting Audited: I didnt (and dont) mind getting audited at all... I think its a necessary thing, and if you arent doing anything wrong, there is no harm in it. Its a process of the Audits i personally found (find) offensive. But, that certainly has zero to do with the folks in Development,a nd the actual advancements of Revit itself. And i think we already have a thread on that, LMAO!

    But yeah, some of your list REALLY hits home to me, too. Well stated.

  9.    #39
    New Member
    Join Date
    July 15, 2014
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    26
    Current Local Time
    05:31 AM

    Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by scourdx View Post
    Unfortunately our design team really have issue with model part. It need a huge overhaul to make the process more streamline and less understanding what cause the error. I did a slideshow on modeling tool and they haven't really change much since 2010. Some of my adaptive component I've used is pretty straight forward with pattern but Revit refuse to let me proceed with finishing the model. It said it has too many edge and no other explanation. This is why a lot of designers are using Rhino and Sketchup. Autodesk need to be better at this and not simply give us the same tool and no progress.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	stay the same.png 
Views:	70 
Size:	105.7 KB 
ID:	39201
    Interestingly enough, none of the firms who signed that letter use Revit as a design tool. All of them go through an extensive painstaking work around process utilizing all sorts of tools like Rhino/grasshopper, Maya, Sketchup and trying their upmost best to get that information into Revit. To this day it blows my mind how poorly developed the modelling tools are in Revit, while it's the main core function of any 3d modelling program. Can you imagine having to use several peripherals to be able to write a sentence in Word, because your Logitech keyboard lacks letters, symbols and numbers? That's Revit in a nutshell for you.

  10.    #40
    Autodesk Kyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 3, 2012
    Posts
    252
    Current Local Time
    01:31 AM

    7 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Hey All,
    I wanted to take a moment here to thank all of you for the time you've taken, and the constructive passion you've brought, in voicing your thoughts and ideas on this thread.

    As I said earlier in the thread, we won't be diving in and responding to all of the great ideas here. We are listening here, among many other areas, and will be talking more publicly about the path ahead in the coming weeks.

    Keep it coming, good or bad; just try and keep it constructive.

    -Kyle

Similar Threads

  1. Toposurface not rising???
    By flying_tj in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 29th, 2018, 03:53 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 29th, 2017, 02:45 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2015, 06:45 PM
  4. Revit OpEd: Dear Mr. OpEd - A Letter from Autodesk
    By Revit OpEd in forum Blog Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 17th, 2013, 04:15 PM
  5. stairs rising on the other side required ??!
    By ahmed_hassan in forum Architecture and General Revit Questions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 16th, 2011, 04:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •