mep / revit

[dumfatnhappy]

well that's by choice actually, I could do everything in one file which I've done if I'm doing the whole project single handed (like I said unless you're 'smart' ).... are you saying all disciplines work in that .RVT at the same time? (and if so how does that work?)

[tzframpton]

well that's by choice actually, I could do everything in one file which I've done if I'm doing the whole project single handed (like I said unless you're 'smart' )....

Okay you "can" put everything in a single DWG file, but then you lose virtually all use of the Project Navigator's usefulness and functionality. There's a reason the Project Navigator exists and it's by far the best option to go in AutoCAD MEP, especially on large or multi-level designs. In other words, you're going right back to the archaic method of AutoCAD which is not taking a step backwards, but a huge leap backward into the bottomless pit of AutoCAD 14 methods and procedures.

 

are you saying all disciplines work in that .RVT at the same time? (and if so how does that work?)

Yes. But there are alternative methods in procedures and sometimes multiple RVT files can be useful, but still, that's strictly to designate each discipline only, the entire model is still one file.

 

Working off a single file has enormous amounts of usefulness when you actually dive into Revit and stay there for awhile.

 

Also,

[myself]

No, that is false. You have multiple *.DWG files where as in Revit, you have a single *.RVT file.

 

 

That's what everyone says until they actually use it. Including me.

 

So you really think that working with Autocad MEP is to avoid the inevitable, which means that in time everybody will be working on Revit? Sorry, i know this is a question made to you a lot of times, but i got confused... Revit seems to be avery good program, but Autocad MEP it's much easier to introduce on the workflow of a company and even makes almost the same things that you could do on Revit, am i right?

[tzframpton]

So you really think that working with Autocad MEP is to avoid the inevitable, which means that in time everybody will be working on Revit?

Of course it's inevitable. Think of anything in technology, it eventually gets phased out with a better product or altered in some way to keep up with today's standards. The AutoCAD file format is almost 30 years old, and the methods are beyond outdated. Granted, it's a weird time right now between AutoCAD and Revit, since Revit still has maturing to do (which it will) and when it does, people using AutoCAD specifically for the building and construction industry will be left behind, just as manual hand drafting is a thing of the past.

 

Revit seems to be a very good program, but Autocad MEP it's much easier to introduce on the workflow of a company and even makes almost the same things that you could do on Revit, am I right?

You are right, if everyone is used to AutoCAD first. This doesn't have to be the case anymore.

[Jacko93]

I think with the recent Autodesk aquisition of cadduct, Revit MEP will start to mature on a faster basis. Hopefully, the catalogues will now be much more inclusive and will cover much more of the area towards fabrication.

[tzframpton]

I think with the recent Autodesk aquisition of cadduct, Revit MEP will start to mature on a faster basis. Hopefully, the catalogues will now be much more inclusive and will cover much more of the area towards fabrication.

Let's hope so, anyways. They need to keep it as native Revit objects, and not a 3rd party add-on objects. Revit objects is what makes Revit so intuitive and I hope it stays that way.

[Jacko93]

Let's hope so, anyways. They need to keep it as native Revit objects, and not a 3rd party add-on objects. Revit objects is what makes Revit so intuitive and I hope it stays that way.

 

Only a short while ago Micro Application Packages (MAP) were approached by Autodesk to complete THEIR catalogues, using MAP's superior knowledge of the MEP market and industry contacts (Certainly the UK market) to ensure all future Revit families are to the correct specification. MAP originally turned this down, believing that they could go it on their own, making use of their FABmep+ software, a conversion tool from Revit to Acad. The fact that MAP had clearly already noted the mucher sharper rise in Revit over the last few years than, maybe, most had anticipated makes me think that they had already started down the road of creating a native plugin for it, which leads me to the thought that they are maybe nearer to completion of full cat's than we think, certainly now with the buy-out. Could we see it in 2013? I doubt it, but surely 2014 will be a belter.

 

I was originally an ACAD MEP fanboy, but we, as a company were forced down the road of MAP's cadmep (cadduct). Now with the inclusion of Revit, whose general layout and workflow, though not operability, is largely the same, this could be the perfect marriage.

 

Fingers Crossed.

[NH3man!]

Seems to leave us feet and inches peeps out of the loop. When one makes that happen, you will hear a big boom over here and all will have to ride the wave!!!!!

[tzframpton]

Seems to leave us feet and inches peeps out of the loop. When one makes that happen, you will hear a big boom over here and all will have to ride the wave!!!!!

I don't think I follow.

[NH3man!]

The software in question only seem to work in metric units. The nominal standards in the US present more of a problem. I am not saying they won't get it done but right now it will only work with the metric units.

[tzframpton]

I guess I seem to be missing something here as Revit and MAP Software both have units in Imperial Inches.

[NH3man!]

Yes but MAP will only convert Revit MEP to AutoCad MEP and back in Metric units.

[tzframpton]

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that.

 

And quite frankly I can't stand converting and 3rd party addon's, just give me something that works, PLEASE. If MAP software can do it, Autodesk can do it.

[NH3man!]

I really think that they (AutoDesk) are going after a Revit to Fabrication all in one package. We have been approached the last few bids about how this can be done. So I would say that Autodesk has been asked the same question many times.

[Jacko93]

I really think that they (AutoDesk) are going after a Revit to Fabrication all in one package. We have been approached the last few bids about how this can be done. So I would say that Autodesk has been asked the same question many times.

 

A short while ago AutoDesk joined up with East Coast CAD in an effort to provide a more encompassing solution, from tha they created the AutoCAD MEP Fabrication suite. This was able to operate within bothe the AutoCAD nd Revit packages, but it seems that their relationship has gone somewhat sour. There was very poor sales and marketing on behalf of this, maybe due to the fact that they were partners with AutoDesk rather than being acquired by them. I can envisage AutoDesk now starting to push out their design to fabrication package out with much more vigour now that it will be solely in their name. The design to Fabrication has been a solution that is in the roadmap for AutoDesk for a good number of years, but, as with the majority of their other products they are more geared towards creative design and calculation than real world solutions and the realisation of them. The addition of MAP to their now huge list of aquired companies may well be a little more influential than forst thought. If they keep the staff and technical teams from MAP then they are gaining a huge insight into the Fabrication market and the knowledge of output from Revit into sheet metal cutting machines etc. The bonus that I can see is that the catalogues of revit are run largely in a database format, as are those of cadmep. Autocad MEP was more of a parts catalogue, making use of blocks rather than data.

[tzframpton]

A short while ago AutoDesk joined up with East Coast CAD in an effort to provide a more encompassing solution, from tha they created the AutoCAD MEP Fabrication suite. This was able to operate within bothe the AutoCAD nd Revit packages, but it seems that their relationship has gone somewhat sour. There was very poor sales and marketing on behalf of this, maybe due to the fact that they were partners with AutoDesk rather than being acquired by them. I can envisage AutoDesk now starting to push out their design to fabrication package out with much more vigour now that it will be solely in their name. The design to Fabrication has been a solution that is in the roadmap for AutoDesk for a good number of years, but, as with the majority of their other products they are more geared towards creative design and calculation than real world solutions and the realisation of them. The addition of MAP to their now huge list of aquired companies may well be a little more influential than forst thought. If they keep the staff and technical teams from MAP then they are gaining a huge insight into the Fabrication market and the knowledge of output from Revit into sheet metal cutting machines etc. The bonus that I can see is that the catalogues of revit are run largely in a database format, as are those of cadmep. Autocad MEP was more of a parts catalogue, making use of blocks rather than data.

I wonder how this is going to pan out for the mechanical contractors. It seems they will now become a "labor company" instead of a full blown construction company since the engineers will have the capability to fully coordinate and fabricate all the necessary materials and send directly to the job.

[Jacko93]

I wonder how this is going to pan out for the mechanical contractors. It seems they will now become a "labor company" instead of a full blown construction company since the engineers will have the capability to fully coordinate and fabricate all the necessary materials and send directly to the job.

 

 

In a sense we have been doing that here in the way of Muti-service modules for quite a while now, where duct, pipe, containment etc, sometimes fully wired and commisioned modules get fabricated off site and delivered in 6m runs. However, there will never be a fully off site fabricated job within the bespoke construction industry, as there are rarely two jobs the same and there will always be a need for a final fix. What it does do is limit the amount of skilled jobs available within the on-site construction sector. Another point to consider is the level of detail in the construction drawing, e.g I would rarely model anything below the ceiling voids unless it specifically needed it, I would leave that section to our skilled fitters, as it is generally small distance runs from pre determined positions to an outlet.

 

I work from the UK and the use of modular systems and off site fabrication works extremely well for us, in the fact that we can have one central fabrication unit and cover the entire UK. The difference in the U.S, and where I can see an issue, is with modules containing mulitiple services, fabricated in differing states, under differing standards. Some states have different building regulations over there, effectively meaning that companies will have to have a fabrication plant in each area, with specifically trained staff for those specific codes in order for it to be cost effective.

 

The company i work for covers the entire field from design through fabrication/installation, with CAD input from the very early tender stages. The hoped/expected/wished improvement in the flow of the product that could be born from this would make life an awful lot easier, and I can finally start going home on time. Although, in reality, as we all know, I will go home at the the same time as I do now, I'll just be expected to of got more done.