Revit Structure 5

[Skicat]

Is anybody using Revit Structure? We have a client that wants us to use it and we've been checking it out. At first glance it looks to be very powerful. Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[civeng80]

Thanks archeng and Don

It seems archeng that your in my sort of position. Autocad is a great product no arguments there, but maybe revit is or will become better. Don how much experience have you with revit ? are you still in the learning curve? are there any good texts to learn how to use revit? My all time favorite in learning autocad is Frey, wondering if there is such a text for revit?

Cheers!

 

[Skicat]

We've recently purchased Revit Structure 2009 and are currently training on the program. We've got a client who wants to use Revit on a big project and we agreed to jump on board with them. So far, I'm very impressed. Granted, the files are HUGE and it takes an extremely fast computer to run the program, but I love it. Having a 3D perspective on the project makes it much easier to understand how everything fits together. Also, I can easily dump my revit model into Etabs and ADAPT to do my design. The learning curve is a little steep at first, but like anything, the more you use it the better you get with it.

 

[Mike1144]

I hope this isn't considered interrupting, but can somebody help me find a grid line? Revit insists I already have a grid line 7. I can't find it. I can enable the work plane, and see what plane it is on. But I can not isolate the actual grid line.

I've even saved the file under a different name and systematically deleted every thing from the model. All I can see is a work plane shaded in light blue mocking me.

I've tried the visibility graphics overrides, as well as the light bulb that reveals hidden elements.

I did receive some notices about corrupt items, along with their ID numbers, but I was told they were deleted.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[LowLax]

Maybe you could draw a grid, select all instances and then delete. That should get rid of it. There are good help forums for Revit Structure here:

http://www.augi.com

 

[DonPhillips]

civeng80,

My experience is limited to a presentation by a vendor where he used Revit to literally design and create some simple construction documents for a single family residence in about 2 hours, plus I have been able to play with an old Revit (version 7) copy. I can see this is the future. Once I get Revit MEP installed and put in a couple of old projects, I can see how it integrates with CHVAC (by Elite) and see if it saves some drafting time.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[civeng80]

Skicat

Interesting comments

So what sort of computer do you recommend for using revit? I have a pentium 4 with windows xp (waiting for new op to come before upgrading!) and 1Gbyte of ram.

Cheers!

 

[civeng80]

Atomic25

Sounds like you know what your talking about.

I think I'll keep revit right where it is at the moment at least for the next 3 years and thats in the back of my mind.

Im quite happy with autocad.

Cheers!!

 

[Skicat]

Our Revit operator has a P4, 3.5GB, 1 GB of ram and running windows XP. It can hardly open the files. We're building him a Pentium Quad Core with 4 GB of ram, dual 250 GB hard drives and running XP. We've only got one seat of Revit for now, but eventually we'll upgrade the whole office. It's really a small investment when you consider the amount of work we're doing now and in the future with it.

 

[civeng80]

So you think the new computer can handle revit files?

Cheers!

 

[Skicat]

The company that builds and services our PCs said he would be shocked if the new computer can't run revit. Our tech will be here today using the new machine. I'll keep you posted on his progress.

 

[civeng80]

I would appreciate that very much !

Thanks Skicat

 

[Spinner666]

I noticed on this thread that someone compared Revit Structures to Tekla Structures. We have recently trialled both systems and to be honest chose to go with Tekla's in the end. Whilst we found Revit to be a good program we were frustrated with it's model size and how slow things became when we worked on complex jobs. Also the drawing output wasn't to our standards and it seemed to take an age to try and set it up.

Tekla on the other hand was easier to use both from a picking it up perspective and a modification perspective. The file sizes are ridiculous when compared to Revit, in the fact they are a 1/10th if not more of the file size, they are tiny. Manipulation of drawing settings was a big thing for us as their output is ultimately our deliverable. With Tekla it just made this process very simple. One big winner for us was their dominance in the Fabrication market given their old X-Steel product which has now become Tekla Structures. By using their Engineering configuration we can now start to work earlier with the Fabricator ensuring shorter project programmes and more coherant data transfer as it's the same system.

All in all i really enjoyed trialling both systems but am confident we made the right decision, especially since they release V14 today and we find that our licence now included capabilities for modelling RC so am looking forward to getting my hands on it

 

[mazingerz]

We have been using Revit for 2 yrs now, and it has proven to be indispensible esp for the big steel building structure we are doing.

The most important really is to know beforehand the clashing of members esp with services (Me , ee, etc..) and to know clearances (ceiling heights, available distances,etc..).

 

[structuresguy]

We have been in the process of evaluating Revit structure for several years now. until the 2008 version came out, my company felt it was not ready for "prime time". We have now been using Revit 2008 for about the last 6 months, by a small group highly trained specialists.

Our experience is very mixed. some things are nice, but some things are so very frustrating. Sheets of general notes are one of the most frustrating, as the text editing capabilities are very sub-par. I do like having a 3D model to play with, especially when the architect sends his revit model. Then I can cut sections wherever i want them, regardless if he has his sections cut yet.

Generating the model is very fast and works well most of the time. Some geometry is a problem, as stated above. Generating the actual production drawings is still very tedious at times, given the poor 2D drafting capabilities.

As for hardware, here are a few recommendations. A fast processor and fast RAM are important. Revit does not support multi-core processors, so consider this in choosing. A faster dual core may be better than getting quad-core here. Get as much RAM as you can. 4GB with Windows XP is recommended (well 3GB, but usually 4 is easier to install in matched pairs). Revit does not support 64 bit operation yet, so you don't need a 64 bit system. Get the fastest RAM you can get.

Revit is not a big hard drive user, except when opening/saving files. But I would still get a large fast hard drive. Running over a LAN to a central server will slow down your save/open speeds. So if you use a server, learn about work sharing and central files.

Revit also does not require a super high end graphics card. Revit runs much quicker on my machine than Autocad Architecture does with similarly complex 3D models. I would look for a mid-range workstation card with 512MB ram. I have an nVidia QuadroFX 1400 and it runs just fine, even with large 30 story models. The exception to this would be if you want to use the new rendering engine in Revit 2009. Then the faster graphics card the better, as the renderings, even simple ones, can take many hours.

Revit does not support dual monitors, so I would recommend one large monitor, say 24" in size or better.

Obviously, all of the things I listed above that Revit does not take advantage of, other applications you use may. So consider those when buying. Here is my workstation specs, and it runs beautifully with Revit 2008 and 2009. Granted this was top of the line about 2 years ago.

Dell Precision 380
Pentium Extreme duo at 3.46 GHz
Windows XP Pro
4GB RAM
quadroFX 1400 graphics
75GB 10000 RPM SATA hard drive (runs about 1/2 full right now with Autocad ADT 2004, 2006, 2008, Revit 2008 & 2009, Staad, Etabs, ADAPT, Enercalc, mat3D, Mathcad, PCA, etc. installed)
Dell 20" LCD (24" on my wish list)

Hope this helps some.

 

[sandman21]

For day to day useage Revit 2009 only uses one core, but when rendering Revit will use up to 4 cores. Revit 2009 does support 64 bit, as you would have system crashes using 4 GB on a 32 bit system, . From the work I have done in Revit it has been a pain, from gen. notes to curved sloped concrete beams.

 

[structuresguy]

Well, I must disagree. Windows XP is a 32bit environment. I have 4GB of RAM. I have no crashing. None of this means that Revit supports 64bit. Windows Xp runs just fine with 4GB of RAM installed. By default, it only uses 3GB worth. But if you have SP2 or later, you can activate 4GB support by enabling what is called the "3GB switch". Do a google search for more info on this if you like.

In fact, I have personally talked to the product manager for Revit Structure (Nicholas Mangon) and asked him about a 64bit version of Revit. He said that was not in the current development plan, but may be added for the next major release. The current version is only 32bit. Perhaps I should have said that there is no plan for 64bit version of Revit. But the 32bit version should run on a 64bit system though. My meaning was that you don't need to spend the extra to get a 64bit version just for Revit, as it won't take advantage of it. Other apps may though, so YMMV.

And it is possible that the new rendering engine uses multi-core processors. But basic Revit does not, and for most of us structural (or MEP) users, we are not too concerned about rendering. But as I said, other apps may take advantage of multi-core processors. So you need to evaluate what you are using and decide do you want dual core or quad core. For me, using cad, revit and analysis software, none of which have multi-core support, dual is just fine. For my computer at home, where I do a lot of photo processing using Photoshop, quad core is essential, and photoshop takes full advantage of it.

 

[Spinner666]

It seems that Revit it's self from the hardware specs above is very reliant on expensive machinery and there are mixed messages as to it's effectiveness on complex jobs.

As a new user of Tekla Structures Engineering configuration we recently got sent this

http://www.tekla.com/international/solutions/building-construction/videos/FirstSteps/index.html

The link was invaluable for us to pick up snippets of information. Also we have been working very closely with a Fabricator using Tekla recently and shaved 3 weeks of design production time as we both worked in the model at the same time, awesome for us as users.

 

[civeng80]

Spinner666

I thought that revit was reliant on pretty expensive hardware too and mentioned this to a rep on a seminar not long ago where he disagreed. But I guess there is no one better qualified to comment than the people who use it rather than the sales reps who want to sell it.