Technology in Architectural Practice

Good discussion here.  When you work in a big firm, you don't think lot about the true value of the software you use every day and the costs involved with keeping it current.  After starting my own firm last summer, it was a big shock to pay for just one suite from Autodesk.  I chalked it up to the cost of doing business/startup costs.  The suite seems like a deal, but then you realize how much more you are paying in subscription each year and it hurts for a small shop.

Then the feature list was leaked or came out early for Revit 2015.  The top of the list was sketchy lines.  Read that again:  Sketchy Lines.  I was convinced it was an April fools joke.  When this piece of software is hands down the biggest purchase during my first year of doing business, this "upgrade" is a slap in the face.

I wrote a long letter to Autodesk expressing my extreme displeasure of getting such an incredibly small number of improvements for such an expensive service subscription.  We have been waiting for a decade for new site tools, there are still major problems with schematic modeling and design options.

None of these have been addressed in an aggressive way or even committed to during feedback sessions.  If you own a massive percentage of the market, why does the roadmap need to be a black hole?  If there isn't really any serious competition, then why not provide some transparency?  At least then we have some indication of what resources Autodesk will be providing to tackle they say are big challenges to rewriting big chunks of Revit.

There are some areas of impressive progress - cloud rendering has been immensely valuable to me in that you can send a rendering off and keep working while it renders in the cloud in a half hour.  This would typically lock up a local machine for easily three or four times as long.  But, that doesn't make up for the fact that the core functions of Revit haven't been dramatically improved on for entirely too long.

It really forces me to take a step back and ask:  Is the cost of this really equal to the value it provides our profession?  For those of us that have been using BIM for over a decade, is it assisting us moving forward at a rate other design and manufacturing industries is, or is it nearly bankrupting us and holding us back?

Good discussion here.  When you work in a big firm, you don't think lot about the true value of the software you use every day and the costs involved with keeping it current.  After starting my own firm last summer, it was a big shock to pay for just one suite from Autodesk.  I chalked it up to the cost of doing business/startup costs.  The suite seems like a deal, but then you realize how much more you are paying in subscription each year and it hurts for a small shop.

Then the feature list was leaked or came out early for Revit 2015.  The top of the list was sketchy lines.  Read that again:  Sketchy Lines.  I was convinced it was an April fools joke.  When this piece of software is hands down the biggest purchase during my first year of doing business, this "upgrade" is a slap in the face.

I wrote a long letter to Autodesk expressing my extreme displeasure of getting such an incredibly small number of improvements for such an expensive service subscription.  We have been waiting for a decade for new site tools, there are still major problems with schematic modeling and design options.

None of these have been addressed in an aggressive way or even committed to during feedback sessions.  If you own a massive percentage of the market, why does the roadmap need to be a black hole?  If there isn't really any serious competition, then why not provide some transparency?  At least then we have some indication of what resources Autodesk will be providing to tackle they say are big challenges to rewriting big chunks of Revit.

There are some areas of impressive progress - cloud rendering has been immensely valuable to me in that you can send a rendering off and keep working while it renders in the cloud in a half hour.  This would typically lock up a local machine for easily three or four times as long.  But, that doesn't make up for the fact that the core functions of Revit haven't been dramatically improved on for entirely too long.

It really forces me to take a step back and ask:  Is the cost of this really equal to the value it provides our profession?  For those of us that have been using BIM for over a decade, is it assisting us moving forward at a rate other design and manufacturing industries is, or is it nearly bankrupting us and holding us back?

The AUTODESK conundrum.

From a one horse firm, I will throw in my 2 cents worth. After starting life in the early CAD years with VersaCAD (Which I liked), the consulting engineers that I worked with got on the CADwagon, and most of them opted for AutoCAD. Thus my own transmogrification to their platform. I never liked it as much as VersaCAD, but felt compelled to stick with the big dogs due to their success in dominating the market.

My current scheme is AutoCAD LT 2007 and SketchUp. Right now it's not broken, but when the time comes, I will find one of the more reasonably priced CAD alternatives. I doubt that I will live long enough to see a well-oiled BIM package - that requires such an enormous amount of programmatic coordination and complexity.

So what about the AIA stepping up to the plate with the commissioning of an independent survey of available CAD (and BIM) platforms with comparisons in function, complexity, price, tutorial availability/effectiveness, OS compatibility, etc.? Guess I'm a dreamer.

Good discussion here.  When you work in a big firm, you don't think lot about the true value of the software you use every day and the costs involved with keeping it current.  After starting my own firm last summer, it was a big shock to pay for just one suite from Autodesk.  I chalked it up to the cost of doing business/startup costs.  The suite seems like a deal, but then you realize how much more you are paying in subscription each year and it hurts for a small shop.

Then the feature list was leaked or came out early for Revit 2015.  The top of the list was sketchy lines.  Read that again:  Sketchy Lines.  I was convinced it was an April fools joke.  When this piece of software is hands down the biggest purchase during my first year of doing business, this "upgrade" is a slap in the face.

I wrote a long letter to Autodesk expressing my extreme displeasure of getting such an incredibly small number of improvements for such an expensive service subscription.  We have been waiting for a decade for new site tools, there are still major problems with schematic modeling and design options.

None of these have been addressed in an aggressive way or even committed to during feedback sessions.  If you own a massive percentage of the market, why does the roadmap need to be a black hole?  If there isn't really any serious competition, then why not provide some transparency?  At least then we have some indication of what resources Autodesk will be providing to tackle they say are big challenges to rewriting big chunks of Revit.

There are some areas of impressive progress - cloud rendering has been immensely valuable to me in that you can send a rendering off and keep working while it renders in the cloud in a half hour.  This would typically lock up a local machine for easily three or four times as long.  But, that doesn't make up for the fact that the core functions of Revit haven't been dramatically improved on for entirely too long.

It really forces me to take a step back and ask:  Is the cost of this really equal to the value it provides our profession?  For those of us that have been using BIM for over a decade, is it assisting us moving forward at a rate other design and manufacturing industries is, or is it nearly bankrupting us and holding us back?

Good discussion here.  When you work in a big firm, you don't think lot about the true value of the software you use every day and the costs involved with keeping it current.  After starting my own firm last summer, it was a big shock to pay for just one suite from Autodesk.  I chalked it up to the cost of doing business/startup costs.  The suite seems like a deal, but then you realize how much more you are paying in subscription each year and it hurts for a small shop.

Then the feature list was leaked or came out early for Revit 2015.  The top of the list was sketchy lines.  Read that again:  Sketchy Lines.  I was convinced it was an April fools joke.  When this piece of software is hands down the biggest purchase during my first year of doing business, this "upgrade" is a slap in the face.

I wrote a long letter to Autodesk expressing my extreme displeasure of getting such an incredibly small number of improvements for such an expensive service subscription.  We have been waiting for a decade for new site tools, there are still major problems with schematic modeling and design options.

None of these have been addressed in an aggressive way or even committed to during feedback sessions.  If you own a massive percentage of the market, why does the roadmap need to be a black hole?  If there isn't really any serious competition, then why not provide some transparency?  At least then we have some indication of what resources Autodesk will be providing to tackle they say are big challenges to rewriting big chunks of Revit.

There are some areas of impressive progress - cloud rendering has been immensely valuable to me in that you can send a rendering off and keep working while it renders in the cloud in a half hour.  This would typically lock up a local machine for easily three or four times as long.  But, that doesn't make up for the fact that the core functions of Revit haven't been dramatically improved on for entirely too long.

It really forces me to take a step back and ask:  Is the cost of this really equal to the value it provides our profession?  For those of us that have been using BIM for over a decade, is it assisting us moving forward at a rate other design and manufacturing industries is, or is it nearly bankrupting us and holding us back?

Good discussion here.  When you work in a big firm, you don't think lot about the true value of the software you use every day and the costs involved with keeping it current.  After starting my own firm last summer, it was a big shock to pay for just one suite from Autodesk.  I chalked it up to the cost of doing business/startup costs.  The suite seems like a deal, but then you realize how much more you are paying in subscription each year and it hurts for a small shop.

Then the feature list was leaked or came out early for Revit 2015.  The top of the list was sketchy lines.  Read that again:  Sketchy Lines.  I was convinced it was an April fools joke.  When this piece of software is hands down the biggest purchase during my first year of doing business, this "upgrade" is a slap in the face.

I wrote a long letter to Autodesk expressing my extreme displeasure of getting such an incredibly small number of improvements for such an expensive service subscription.  We have been waiting for a decade for new site tools, there are still major problems with schematic modeling and design options.

None of these have been addressed in an aggressive way or even committed to during feedback sessions.  If you own a massive percentage of the market, why does the roadmap need to be a black hole?  If there isn't really any serious competition, then why not provide some transparency?  At least then we have some indication of what resources Autodesk will be providing to tackle they say are big challenges to rewriting big chunks of Revit.

There are some areas of impressive progress - cloud rendering has been immensely valuable to me in that you can send a rendering off and keep working while it renders in the cloud in a half hour.  This would typically lock up a local machine for easily three or four times as long.  But, that doesn't make up for the fact that the core functions of Revit haven't been dramatically improved on for entirely too long.

It really forces me to take a step back and ask:  Is the cost of this really equal to the value it provides our profession?  For those of us that have been using BIM for over a decade, is it assisting us moving forward at a rate other design and manufacturing industries is, or is it nearly bankrupting us and holding us back?