Autodesk Revit Architecture 2010 Crack Download Free
Yvette Pesnell
I am an architect that has been working with atuocad for over 15 years, now i am having a chance to work with BIM software and fund that there are two main software that I can choose in between. "Atuodesk architecture" and "Revit". When I have asked around a lot of people told me that Revit is better and easier but you need to learn it from scratch and it doesn't have cad tools, while architecture is cad based and you can build your model from scratch up using the cad tools with addition.
I ususally design my projects from concept to 3d to 2d drwings in autocad. I am told I cn do the same thing in architecture only easier in 3D and you can use it as BIM. While revit has a totaly different approach.
- does revit have autcad tools such as lines, layers, dimensions.... or similarties or do i have to export it to autocad and do the 2d drawings? another words if i use revit do i need autocad anymore or there is no need for it.
I meant the team that is working on the development of "AUTODESK ARCHITECTURE". I want to ask them if they are working to find away to make BIM in the program as easy as the one in revit or better. also if they make rendering better.
That depends on what you mean by "transfer". Revit can export DWG files. DWG files can be linked into Revit (or imported, not a good idea, generally). Most people will tell you that the best workflows keep all of the work in one or the other, however.
Note that AEC objects in AutoCAD Architecture drawing files (Walls, Doors, Windows, etc.) cannot be read by Revit, so if you really need to link in a file that contains AEC objects, you will need to export that file to AutoCAD (from a viewpoint that shows what you want to see in Revit) to explode it down to AutoCAD objects that can be read by Revit. Note also that exports from Revit, while nominally plottable "as is" from AutoCAD and, possibly, usable as background reference files, will require an amount of post-export processing to get them to be "editable" as a CAD file moving forward. I have found that even for use as a background file, the DWG files exported Revit require post-export processing. I would highly recommend having the entire project team on the same platform.
The main problem with Revit is that a small business may waste their time with it. Some small businesses have to do all the works from Civil Engineering/Surveying to Architecture and they do not need the full range of bells and whistles of BIM while Revit is considerably less optimized and powerful for almost any kind of CAD work that resides outside building information. It should be also stressed that EVEN PLAIN AUTOCAD can in effect do some "BIMing" because you can take full advantage of Fields and Dynamic Blocks among other things.
I'm reviving this thread once more. I am curious as to what made you choose AutoCAD Architecture instead of transitioning to Revit, 6 years ago? And what make you stay in AutoCAD Architecture instead of using Revit?
I was notified of your comment as to me but it appears you've asked the original poster.
I'll give you my response as well.
I am still using ACA2020 which does mostly what I need it to do. My reasons to stick with ACA was that it does everything Revit does anyway so why pay more, take a big hit in training, reworking my whole setup, libraries, process etc which would mean a big financial hit, just to change programs so I can do what I do now. Revit gives me nothing extra. Not really. There needs to be a strong reason and it ain't there.
I've got off the bandwagon (no paying any sub) and will stick with ACA2020 for years to come. I will focus on the holes and tighten the workarounds, add some programming options . Every new release brought new bugs so now I won't have to contend with the new broken bits giving me nightmares. Autodesk has not improved ACA substantially for 10 years although there are a couple of small features that are nice. Not enough to pay more than $10,000AU for since that's more than the cost of the whole program.
They now give ACA away in Autocad. Hopefully that means more people will use it.
Autodesk deliberately dumbs down the rendering tools and while it's gone thru a number of reworks, they never really got it together and it's hobbled so as to not compete with Max but that's a stupid thing to do. It's a hodgepodge of broken bits from different eras.
I am now investigating free Blender which is far more powerful, and importing into Unreal engine or it's architectural derivative TwinMotion for rendering, sun studies and easy walkthru's. They are fast at manipulating 3D, far more powerful and a pleasure to use over Adesk which is like trying to get an elephant to sit in a child's chare without breaking it. Lumion even created a tool bar within Autocad that exports file formats that 3D programs use, something Adesk could easily have done but refused because they won't play with others, whilst crippling their own products.
ACA2020 is graphically slow and cumbersome, but Revit is not much better IF. My local industry is strong on ArchiCAD so if I were to start over I would possibly use it but it's over $10,000AU for 1 seat if you include local content etc. to get started. Blender now has free tools to create arch components but obviously not suitable as a full on Arch package (at least not yet). Sketchup has long been used as a very competent arch tool.
For me, Adesk has failed big time to meet current expectations and they have deliberately penalized me for their own marketing purposes and they have lost me as a loyal customer. But I am a single seat and they don't care.
I do like using ACA and I have customised to be efficient but it's failed on the extras side of things. It's atrocious for walkthroughs (embarrassing level) and it's rendering is now a decade behind. They even crippled what I was doing easily in ADT6 and ACA2016/17. Imagery plays a big part in winning clients over and offering to the market. Adesk failed. I'm done.
Well, have a project now that I need revit for so went out and installed revit 2017. Didn't want to overwrite my copy of autocad architecture right now so decided to NOT download the entire building design suite.
Because of my familiarity with Autocad products, was thinking that maybe the Revit Architecture was a suite that had product in addition to vanilla Revit..... similar to the way there is an autocad and an autocad architecture package.
So, if I'm reading what you wrote correctly, in my mind, the way revit is packaged is backwards from autocad. Meaning REVIT 2016 actually is more all inclusive than REVIT Architecture 2016. Is this correct?
7fc3f7cf58