More than just a simple speed test for you to argue about: ArchiCAD vs Revit
As a hobby I should give up, I enjoy reading and watching comparisons of ArchiCAD vs Revit. Even when they are horribly biased and wrong, I find I learn a fair amount about both programs. Often I discover the most about the program not being directly talked about (ei, by someone praising or trashing Program A I learn something about Program B). I like seeing how these comparisons actually teach us about our preferred tools; how often what is highlighted when one of these programs is shit upon is not a feature that works poorly, but a feature that is poorly understood. Or perhaps just poorly used by inexperienced users. This all provides good ammo for teaching the programs. Here’s an example:
When I first watched this video and saw how slow the section cut generation in ArchiCAD was going, I kept thinking “WTF? That should be WAY faster.” Then I saw how crazy that little building was. Yeah it makes sense it was slow. What’s missing is cutting a second section. ArchiCAD 17 should be super fast, right? But that’s not what I am interested in. I assume that what we’re seeing isn’t the optimal Revit solution (this is a video made by an ArchiCAD user after all). Maybe some of those steps in Revit could be saved as part of the default section tool and be made faster. The screen is also a little too small for me to understand exactly what is going on. So is the comparison perfect? No. Is it biased? Probably. Is it still super interesting? Yup. Does it make me wish for more? Maybe some biased against ArchiCAD? Hellyeah. But most importantly, does it give me more reference points to have meaningful conversations with others? Does it provide me with other questions to ask when I’m having serious discussions about BIM programs? Yes.
Look it’s not the results of this video I want to use in my next argument, it’s the questions raised that I want to be able to talk with people about. Like the value of view regeneration and graphic display of common and not-so-common elements. I don’t care which program comes out on top in the above video. But I do care about being able to have good conversations with users, prospective users, and the developers of these programs.
More Alien vs Predator, I mean ArchiCAD vs Revit
Here’s some other comparisons I’ve collected over the past few months. I just find these interesting. I’m not trying to judge or make a point. More just passing along examples of comparisons that will hopefully make you think about your own preferred solution and make you better able to ask the important questions to the people who need to be asked. Because again that’s what I’m really interested in. How does comparing ArchiCAD to Revit teach me about ArchiCAD. How can I use these comparisons to better engage with Revit users? How can I use the comparisons to more deeply understand what I do on a daily basis. How can I use these comparisons to improve my teaching. How can I use this knowledge to demand more from ArchiCAD, and also better problem solve the daily annoyances?
Revit 2011 vs ArchiCAD 14
This is old, but done by a pro. It sets up some good questions to be re-examined with each release. It reminds me of the discussion started in my Ideal BIM post. It’s not so much about is A better than B, but how is each progressing? Are the weaknesses of 2011 still here in 2013. Or will some vanish with ArchiCAD 17 and Revit 2014? Or ArchiCAD 18 and Revit 2015?
Revit 2014 vs ArchiCAD 17
I really appreciate everything Stefan Boeykens has to say. As an educator and research rather than a practitioner, Stefan has a different perspective on BIM software than many users.
Garquitectos — Estudio de Arquitectura — Málaga
These are translated, so some of the language is a bit off (Google Translate is amazing, not perfect). José compares both ArchiCAD and Revit, as well as ArchiCAD and Allplan. It seems like he has plans to do more. And don’t worry everyone wins, or loses, depending on your perspective.
BIM Wars: Conceptual Modeling BIM tools and the winner is…Revit
BIM Wars: Revit vs Archicad, and the winner is…Archicad
BIM WARS: Archicad vs Allplan
ArchiCAD over Revit: Where’s the opposing view?
I’ll end with this one from BIM Engine, the Graphisoft North America Blog: Some interesting thoughts: On the Record, ArchiCAD Over Revit – Says Zawrotny. It raises two other issues I want an excuse to talk about.
So right, I can hear the detractors saying “of course on an ArchiCAD blog you’re going to have a user say ArchiCAD is better than Revit.” But here’s the thing…every time I’ve talked to or read about some firm that uses both regularly, the answer is always the same. ArchiCAD over Revit. Where are the opposing views? Where are the users who work at firms that use both programs that choose Revit over ArchiCAD? Not people who have used an old version of one program years ago and a new version of the other. But people who have to use both regularly. Power users, BIM managers, etc. I’d love to meet those people. And read their articles and posts. If you are out there, I’ve got a blog that wants you to guest post. E-mail me. I don’t think these people’s views will answer the question of which program is better, but I do feel that they give us perspective on usability. And that perspective should be valuable to all users, to everyone who wants to maximize the program(s) they prefer.
Can you stomach someone pointing out the weaknesses of things you hold dear? I hope I can.
One more thing regarding the endless debate of comparing tools that are hard, or at least awkward to compare. Good for Graphisoft North America for going straight into this topic, not stepping around it or being coy….but blatantly defending their turf. Good for them.
Remember, we’re Yo Gabba Gabba, not Dora the Explorer.
Love reading about ArchiCAD and Revit? Follow Shoegnome on Facebook and Twitter for more of that AND thoughts on being an Architect in the 21st Century. Trying to make a decision about which BIM software to use. I have the ultimate answer for you. Seriously, here’s BIM software you should use.
Wes M
The real answer to the question, which is better re: ArchiCAD vs Revit is *the program your firm knows how to use better.* A firm full of power users of one program is going to be as successful as the firm full of power users using the other. You will ENJOY using the software you KNOW BEST. In any given locale it’s the number of strong users of a program that drive its adoption. In Vancouver and much of Canada, ArchiCAD is dead in the water, and Revit enjoys significant adoption in most major centers. Not because AC is bad, but because Revit became an Autodesk product, and that got it on everyone’s radar. So a firm’s choice vis-a-vis BIM platforms ought to be driven by 1) the availability of local users and support 2) what their competitors and engineers are using; 3) if they’re already owners of Autodesk software and 4) do they wish to be independent of the big A?
Jared Banks
Wes, definitely. A firm full of power users is a firm full of power users, regardless of the tools. I imagine a dozen amazing AutoCAD users all working in concert can do some great stuff. This raises a lot of issues regarding power vs skill, ability to learn, enjoyment of usage, etc. Though I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions about picking a software. I think availability of local users is valuable, but good people can be trained. And in our modern age, experts are never far away (at least virtually). Though power users raising awareness is some of the best local/grassroots PR a product can get.
I am always wary of making decisions based on herd mentality, the endowment effect, the assumption that staying in the same silo has more value than leaving it, and brand loyalty/disloyalty. As much as I think it’s not a great business decision to stick with a brand just because you’ve used their other products over the years, I think it’s equally troublesome to not go with a company just because you view them as the Enemy. These software developers need to continue to earn our respect and money.
And I think it’s also important to remember that just because a company or its products are written off as dead or seen as the dominate player, doesn’t mean that is an eternal situation. The technological landscape changes so often and so fast, that what matters is companies and products that can adapt. Not what their market share is in a given quarter.
Sean
What strikes me as odd about the video, knowing absolutely nothing about ArchiCAD:
a) a properly configured machine wouldn’t have that trouble regenerating in Revit with hardware acceleration. It’s nearly instantaneous, until we get beyond smallish building such as this.
b) The act of placing section in Revit is two clicks, and simply one double click on the head arrow to open the resulting view. All the gymnastics shown right-clicking, cropping and re-cropping show someone who needs a bit of training in project setup.
Sections, like all cropped model views, automatically find the limits of the building when it has level and grid datum placed in advance.
Doing this simple task well does not require a “power user”, it is fundamental. The above term is somewhat belittling of those who are talented designers, architects, etc and have simply not yet put in the time necessary to obtain a new skill. It also doesn’t necessarily exhalt those who have reached a level of mastery. We are all newbies at everything we try for the first time. Success largely depends on a willingness to learn. Any tool is only as good as the skill of the hand that wields it.
Let’s all just put our debates aside, be thankful we have work in our chosen profession and never lose sight of the fact that ultimately: BIM/CAD or if you want to document in Excel, the end (completed architectural edifice) is more important than the means.
lukaszsw
Ad a) having hardware acceleration checked does very little to regenerating views. In fact it only speeds up views with shadows turned on. I’ve been using Revit since version 8 and with a variety of graphics cards, some of the nVidia Quadro. What was striking is that a professional graphics card does no difference over a standard one.
Me and my company work in Revit since a couple of years. I’ve also worked on a single project in ArchiCAD. What the video shows is exactly what I remember about those two programs performance on the same machine. The video doesn’t show the workflow of programs. Revit always seemed more friendly for me but the support and attention to details was severly lacking. Like they have never hired an architect to weight in.
TroyGates (@TroyGates)
That computer must be running an integrated video card and very little RAM. I work on very large hospitals as MEP with multiple arch and structure models loaded in with 100,000s of objects and can spin a rendered view with shadows on with no choppiness.
I think showing a video like this where both softwares look like they are struggling because of lack of hardware does neither justice. I wouldn’t want anyone on my projects working with that system.
Jared Banks
Troy and Sean,
All great points. I had a feeling the Revit half wasn’t the optimal workflow. And to be honest as stated above I have some questions about the speed of the archicad side too.
I’m really glad you all weighed in because it perhaps points to the real value of this particular video. Is what we are seeing an example of what not to do? And the effects of hardware? On the ArchiCAD-talk forum we ask that everyone list no only the version of the software they are using but also their hardware specs. Maybe this video is just showing both these programs on an under powered laptop. Which most of us would never use. I’m very curious to know the machine’s specs.
But does a typical one or two man shop switching to BIM really understand this? Do they get that they need to invest in quality hardware and not just the minimum specs? Users who don’t have the time or energy to learn the tools correctly definitely don’t have the time to learn about the required hardware environment either. Hopefully conversations like this will help with that. Regardless of what some theoretical firm chooses for their BIM software.
Thanks again for your responses.
TroyGates (@TroyGates)
In my professional opinion, if anyone is smart enough to run their own business (1 – 2 man shop) they should definitely be researching the hardware requirements for their chosen BIM software. Hardware is just as important to the project as the software is. ArchiCAD or Revit could be the greatest software ever conceived but if you don’t have the hardware to run it, you will never reap the intended benefits.
In today’s industry, there is no excuse for not thoroughly researching the requirements for new software or processes via resellers, social media, websites/forums, user groups, etc. We live in a very connected world and it is rare that when someone tries to do something new, someone else hasn’t already done it or tried it.
Pingback: You're just a lowly BIM Manager and you've got no goals » Shoegnome
Sean
Amen to that. Although with all those available resources, I can imagine it must be difficult to find the right information at the right time. As BIM adoption with small firms is really in its infancy, an entrepreneurial and savvy leader could do well to provide recommendations through consults with these firms.
Getting them past the usual sticker-shock reaction is challenging. I always try to wrap it around the context of hourly cost per year, which ends up showing that it’s value is very high on returns when you have a good plan and execute. Just like architects are hired to design buildings, work with a professional that understands BIM and can tailor an implementation plan that achieves your firm’s goals.
Jared, usually the users are not given the ability to make decisions about the tools (hardware or software) they use in the employment of others. As illustrated by both sides of that video, the consequences to firms who don’t look forward to the future may suffer dire consequences.
Jared Banks
Firms switching to BIM never like to hear that the cost of the software is only 1/3+/- of what they need to spend (new machines, training, etc…)
Pingback: ArchiCAD vs Revit Grand Challenge, this could work » Shoegnome
Paul O.
I like where this article is going. I hear the question, “How does *x* software package stack up to set T of tools needed by architects/construction professionals/engineers/etc?” I’m coming into AEC from the IT world where this sort of deep digging is so common that’s boiled down to a science. Here’s one of the better resources that lays out where different web browsers fail or excel at meeting industry standards (ignore the jargon, look at the pretty colors): http://caniuse.com/.
I say we should dream big in laying out what tools we want. Having learned and used Revit on the job for the last few months, here’s a short (non-exhaustive) list of what I’d like to see in my ideal BIM software platform:
1. Code analysis with a standard data format to describe the strictures of any code.
2. The option to treat the tool like an actual construction set and do “real” construction from available parts or test out experimental parts and structures. (e.g. If I want to build a CMU wall, I’d the option to test a special design using simulated blocks and mortar)
3. Why in the name of Sam Hill aren’t industry standard 2D details, common router profiles, etc. included as a bare minimum? I find that Autodesk does a particularly poor job here. “We give you the tools you need to reinvent the wheel!” is not a great selling point …
4. We have incredibly powerful computers today, but a huge range of performance specs. The ideal package will be able to scale itself, maintaining design/build/review functionality and responsiveness at the expense of graphics quality or analysis capabilities. I want to run my models on a tablet or on a highly distributed network of supercomputers without missing a beat even if my Android tablet can’t show me all the veins in the leaf of my favorite landscape piece. If my $600 workstation can give me this (http://carvisualizer.plus360degrees.com/threejs/) real-time rendering in a web browser, then it can sure as heck model give me a “good-enough” interior lighting render without resorting to a piece rendering software that takes hours to throw out a single image.
5. On that note, if a bored guy in Norway can convince millions of people (and their 10s of millions of dollars) to buy his video game made of poorly-textured blocks that you can build with like Legos (www.minecraft.net), my BIM very expensive software better be able to give me a real-time walkthrough with halfway decent rendering.
Jared Banks
Paul, well said! Would you be interested in fleshing this comment out and resharing it as a guest blog post? Send me an e-mail.
I think you raise some good points that could be nicely laid out and shared with everyone. I do see Point 2 as the most complex to resolve as ‘industry standard details’ don’t really exist. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t. Why do you and I and everyone else need to reinvent the wheel on each project. Why not have a window detail that we all use for brick and cmu walls? I’m sure there are good arguments on both sides, but the question is worth asking.
Imagine if we all pledged to abide by standard details. What would that afford us all? Standardization happens elsewhere why not for us? It’s not like our value as designers, creative types, engineers, etc. is based on the uniqueness of our hidden detailing? Well perhaps for some of us it is. And that’s okay. They can play by their own rules. And maybe, just maybe the standardization of these things would allow the rest of us to explore details more as we have a baseline to work from…I don’t know.
Pingback: hiCAD » UPOREDNE CENE
naderbelal2002
Jared I will give you my personal comparison of Revit 2014 against ArchiCAD 17 from my own personal experience in the aspects that I have tested them extensively ….
Computer resources:
1) It’s already known that to run a decent Revit Model you must have a machine that is from the middle high range to top-notch, and ArchiCAD says the same but from my personal experience, ArchiCAD can do more with less, as I have been able to manage a 1GB ArchiCAD file ver. 16 (a practice discouraged by Graphisoft) when my computer only had a 4GB RAM, and on a far better machine my file which didn’t even reach the 120 MB crashes.
2) Revit doesn’t use the multi-nucleii of modern processors, ArchiCAD does.
The program files:
– Both programs depends on a number of files to do the work, in the majorty of the time we have families of objects for Revit, and library objects on Archicad, well for instance I like the idea of making a parametric object library mainly by drawing it as in Revit, which until today the process is more tedious from ArchiCAD’s side …. but
1) You must have very clear what type of category this object would be, because based on it you will have to chose the right Revit Family, cause not all the families are the same, cause there are things you could do and not to do depending on the object’s category in Revit; in Archicad, you only have one type of file and you can do what ever you want to do (end of the story).
2) The parametrics in Revit’s family are quiet easy to understand and to control if you grasp some basic aspects of its creations, but when you want to do something really smart on Revit, baam, you will find that it’s really really really limited, in ArchiCAD it depends on your capacity and smartness to use its code.
3) The smallest Revit family you can create in terms of size is always more than 150KB, which is not a problem if not of Revit’s specific requirements of 20x only in RAM to start managing it, while in ArchiCAD you can make the same object in gsm (or by drawing then converting it to an object) with only have the size, and will only will require 5x more in RAM memory to manage it.
4) Although the last point may be seem like childish to you, then just imagine the number of different objects that you will need in a normal size project …. Did you get the idea ?
5) While I was trying to make the annotation families to create an office template in Revit, well you discover some characteristics that really get your nerve, for instance, why the hell a section callout tag must always be horizontal while the elevation callout tag can rotate and maintain readability as much as I like.
Managing linked files of the same program:
– ArchiCAD have done with the mission in a far better manner than you could ever wish in Revit.
Managing linked files of other programs:
– Well for many times I have tried to link, inbed dwg files on ArchiCAD and Revit, well I was shocked to find out that ArchiCAD did handle the dwg files in a much softer, easier, and more quickly that Revit have done.
And there is alot more I can tell
Keith
I find Archicad speaks in human creative language, Revit speaks computer geek language.