Autocad Architecture v Revit Architecture

[redrickyd]

Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of each piece of software?

Is autocad architecture worth learning or is it going to become redundant?

cheers

[RobDraw]

There are plenty of reviews and comparisons out there so I'll just say that Revit is supposed to be the wave of the future but AutoCAD is not going away any time soon.

[StykFacE]

Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of each piece of software?

Is autocad architecture worth learning or is it going to become redundant?

cheers

Just stick with Revit. AutoCAD Architecture's "intuitive interface" is based on Revit's original interface. When Autodesk acquired Revit in 1998 (I believe?) that's when ACA took a big leap foward. When you play with both of them, you see Revit's ingenuity in ACA. After awhile, you realize the severe road blocks ACA has since it's trying to mimic Revit, which you can't do because Revit already exists.

[f700es]

Well there is a reason that when you buy the Revit Arch suite that you get AutoCAD Arch with it They really do work together. Revit is the bomb but I see it being more for standard design and construction. Custom stuff including custom details might need to be finished out in Acad Arch. Look into getting the suite that way you get..
Revit Arch
Acad Arch
Acad
all in one package. This way you can progress into Revit at you own pace if needed.
Good luck

Sean

[f700es]

Are you sure? To me Acad Arch looks like the old SoftDesk package from way back when.
I do agree that you need Revit to go forward, espically for larger projects and maybe complex projects.

Just stick with Revit. AutoCAD Architecture's "intuitive interface" is based on Revit's original interface. When Autodesk acquired Revit in 1998 (I believe?) that's when ACA took a big leap foward. When you play with both of them, you see Revit's ingenuity in ACA. After awhile, you realize the severe road blocks ACA has since it's trying to mimic Revit, which you can't do because Revit already exists.

[StykFacE]

Are you sure? To me Acad Arch looks like the old SoftDesk package from way back when.
I do agree that you need Revit to go forward, espically for larger projects and maybe complex projects.

Yeah, my answer actually comes from a friend of mine who's a 40 yr old veteran Architect and has extensive experience in Autodesk products. He's been using Revit since before Autodesk acquired them, and he's an ex-guru in ACA. He's actually tutoring me in advanced Revit MEP procedures so we talk about it all the time. He's the one who showed me the similarities and trust me, it's very clear that ACA is trying to mimic Revit. It's even true in AutoCAD MEP vs Revit MEP.

Once you dive into the Display Manager, Styles Manager, Project Navigator, etc of ACA, then get familiar with Revit's V/G Dialog, Filters, and Project Navigator.... you'll see it clear as day.

[f700es]

Good point but AutoCAD Arch came out way before revit was around. I used Arch back in 1990. Oh well they do seem to be trying to "meld" the 2 as you pointed out. I see this myself as "I dig" into Revit.

[StykFacE]

ACA was definitely around before Revit. I just see how intuitive Revit actually is now. Most people who use Revit for an extended period of time, then re-open ACA, they wonder how/why they ever used it, lol!!

I think the original poster needs to really understand what Revit is for. It's for complete architectural modeling, and there's no "half-way" with Revit. You can't choose to not go all the way with Revit. ACA you can, with the 2D tools. Revit can be used for smaller jobs but you can't just "whip something out" like you can in ACA.

[f700es]

You are correct. A small plan, elev and detail can be done real quick in ACA.