cry22,
I do agree that small companies will likely not get Revit since it is expensive to procure and does require training.
To use Revit effectively, in my opinion, you cannot expect line jockeys (i.e. strict CAD drafters) to be able to do it. But it doesn't require engineers to do drafting either. Companies who employ designers/drafters who understand how systems go together, how equipment works, how to lay out piping/ductwork, etc. are ideal canditates for Revit. The engineer can oversee at a certain level the big picture of the project and then have time to do the engineering.
If he wants to mark up plans and hand them to somebody to put into the software, he will burn up his budget. At least that is what we have experienced.
I totally disagree with your statement about the time it takes to cut a section being the same. If you have ductwork, plumbing, fire suppression, electrical conduit, cable tray, structural elements, walls, etc. changing or moving - it is very difficult for everybody involded to see the changes as they happen. In AutoCad, everybody has to move everybody else's components in their section. In Revit, you just tap the "Reload Latest" or Reload a link - all of which might take 5-10 minutes and everybody can see the changes without doing anything to the section. And if you want to move the section a few feet down a corridor - the components automatically shift to where you place the section.
And, at least in Revit 9 and beyond, you can draw pipe in section and it shows up in plan view. I like this especially for sloped plumbing pipe because I can look at the route I want to take my pipe, se all the structure and other elements and then draw in my pipe. If that route doesn't work, I can shift the section a few feet and find a route that will work. I do not know that can be done by manually drawing sections, especially when things move so much.
Revit does take more time on the design side, but from my experience, there is a lot less time spent on working out "fit" problems in the field - especially if the contractors are given the model to put together coordination drawings.
The contractor who understands this can submit a bid that is less expensive (and more likely to be awarded) because he knows the effort to put together coordination drawings will take less time to do than if he had to use 2d Cadd drawings.
It is the PMET and A firms that have to understand that when using Revit, it might take more effort during design, but less effort dealing with problems in the field.
Another facet which is pertinent is what the owner wants. If he wants a model to be able to see where the piping is going and how it fits, and to use for BIM - Revit is ideal. In Revit, I can set up schedules that automatically count all fittings, valves, pipe lengths, etc. If I shorten a section of pipe, it shows up in the schedule. If I add fittings, it shows up. I don't have to keep track of anything.
I don't know whether AutoCadd has this capability.
In Revit, if it is used right, on projects of medium to high complexity, the owner gets a better, more coordinated design, and the whole fee paid to the design team for design and construction administration is typically the same.
And when the owner sees the quality of design he receives, he is more willing to pay a little extra for the extra effort Revit takes. And when the architect knows of PMET firms that are proficient in Revit, he is more likely to want them on the team than than a firm who is not proficient in Revit.
I have seen this with my company - where owners and architects seek us out to be on the design team, not because we have the lowest fee, but because we have the reputation of excelling at using Revit.
