RAM ADVANSE PROGRAM 1

[cap4000]

Do any structural engineers use this program? I am interested in purchasing it for $1500.00. Any feedback on this program would be appreciated. The CD intro looks great.

 

[TFL]

LOVE IT!!! I USE IT ALL THE TIME FOR SIMPLE STRUCTURES. IT DOES NOT HAVE MANY OF THE FEATURES OF STADD[THAT I DON'T REALLY NEED]. I FIND IT QUICKER FOR SIMPLE CONT. BEAMS, FRAMES, TRUSSES. PRETTY MUCH MOST OF THE TYPICAL "QUICK" PROBLEMS THAT I DO THAT ARE TOO COMPLEX TO DO BY HAND AND TOO SIMPLE FOR A STAAD OR RAM SYSTEM ANALYSIS. I DO NOT TYPICALLY USE IT TO DESIGN ENTIRE COMPLEX STRUCTURES, THOUGH I SUPOSE IT COULD. RAM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM IS BETTER FOR THAT. I FIND IT VERY INTUITIVE. THE ONLY CONFUSING PART WAS THAT YOU USE THE SHIFT KEY TO SELECT MULTIPLE ITEMS NOT THE CTRL KEY AS IN MOST OTHER PROBLEMS.ONCE I FIQURED THAT OUT I WAS ALL SET.

 

[DaveAtkins]

Excellent software for almost all the analysis problems a structural engineer will face. Can do finite element analysis, thereby eliminating the need for a program such as MATS. However, I will say that the graphics in RISA-3D are superior. If you can get RISA-3D for the same price, or at least close, I would recommend RISA-3D.

DaveAtkins

 

[SperlingPE]

I am also a fan of RAM Advance and RAM Structural System. I seldom use STAAD anymore.
RAM seems very structural engineer intuitive. Be aware of its shortcomings. Most of which are pointed out in the included literature.
I have done a reinforced concrete frame building and a moment frame/shear wall building with Advance. It was a valuable tool when detailing concrete beams.

 

[SmithJ]

Hi,

I am just beginning to use the software myself in our office so I can't really speak cofidently of it's strong points. However, one of the senior Engineers here has used it for a long time and seems to feel it is on par with STAAD. He is vigorously advocating that we purchase more licenses and move permanently to RAMAdvance.

However, I agree with DaveAtkins that RISA-3D is an excellent package. I have found that RISA is very versatile and would reccomend it anyday. You might want to compare both packages to see what best suits your needs.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
JS.

 

[jheidt2543]

I use RAM Advance and the learning curve is pretty short, a couple of days and you are up and running real structures. One thing not mentioned yet is their technical support is super! You can even zip a structural file and send it in for help on some of the finer points and more complex structures.

 

[CTW]

I've used Visual Analysis in the past but I too have been looking at purchasing Ram Advanse recently. Can anyone that has used both Ram Advanse and Visual Analysis offer their opinion on which one they preferred?

 

[LPPE]

I've used RAM AdvanSE in the past, and it was a great program.

 

[rday]

I used RAMAdvanse at a previous job and am currently using Visual Analysis. I prefer RAM. It felt far more intuitive and I think less cumbersome to use.

I have also used the RAM structural system and really liked the software, not to mention the tech support.

Rik

 

[aggman]

I used RAM Advanse for two years, but have switched over to RISA 3D since the end of September 2003. I have found that RISA is much better for us. It is the little things like triangular Finite Elements, and the ability to just enter in general member properties, where RAM would not let us do that. RISA now does concrete, although we did prefer the Advanse concrete detailer much more. RISA also allows the use of tension and compression only springs, where RAM does not. One of the biggest things that bothered us is that Advanse is not their hard-core main program, and it seems to get pushed to the side. RISA 3D is RISA technologies main program, and thus is their top priority, especially with their new floor program being integrated, but still driven off of the RISA 3D. In regards to support, I can tell you that RISA support is much better than RAM, and they are not afraid to tell you if you have modeled something correctly or not, and if the results are accurate. We purchased RISA for $2000, and it was a steal as far as we are concerned. You can download trial software to see how it goes. RISA learning curve is a little slower than RAM, but once you get on to it you can model as fast if not faster than in RAM, and the results will give you a warm fuzzy feeling. Just a note from someone who isn't sold on RAM Advanse, who has engineered some fairly large structures with it.

Aggman

 

[jheidt2543]

I would suggest getting a demo of each of the programs you are interested in and run a test using the same structure and loading on each of the programs. That test and discussions with the sales reps for each program should give you a pretty good idea of what you want.

 

[denoid]

We are a small structural office, and we purchased RAM Advanse about a year ago... we love it, too. I have used RISA, RAM full version, and STAAD, and I think for the money, Advanse does everything we need it to do. We have also used the technical support a couple of times, and they were very helpful. Two thumbs up from our office.

 

[jfudo]

Our office has been using RamAdvanse and other Ram packages for the last 3 years and we have moved to them almost exclusively. The time saved using these over STAADS is incredible. Advanse has more than enough options and customizations for general building design.

I concur that the tech support from them is very helpful.

 

[SAMO]

I wonder if any Canadian engineers use RAM-Advanse. I know it doesn't do design according to the Candadian code.

Thanks