AECOSIM VS REVIT

Hola alguien ha hecho una comparación completa entre aecosim y revit? Pueden compartir el resultado?

Gracias

Jorge Chavez Marquez

México

Parents
  • Hola Jorge,

    Muchas organizaciones han estado utilizando el software de información y construcción (BIM Tools) entre ellos están ingenieros, directores de proyectos y consultores de costes en el diseño de infraestructuras. Revit y AECOsim son dos reconocidas herramientas en el mercado de BIM.  Aquí hay algunas comparaciones entre ambos productos:

    ¿Por qué Revit?

    • Revit es un poco fácil de usar y por lo tanto para dominar se necesita menos tiempo.
    • La fácil interacción ha convertido a Revit en uno de los estándares en la industria.
    • Soporte al cliente.


    ¿Por qué AECOsim?

    • AECOsim es más robusto y tiene más capacidades en comparación con Revit.
    • Soporte al cliente
    • La coordinación con el navegador se hace más fácil con AECOsim.
    • El software y los gastos de capacitación son más baratos que Revit.
    • A diferencia de Revit, AECOsim es más interoperable y escalable.
    • Ambos productos han sido diseñados para ofrecer capacidades supremas de diseño. Sin embargo, cuando se trata de alcanzar el mercado, ambos tienen sus propias fortalezas y debilidades.

  • Why Revit?

    • Revit is a bit easy to use and therefore to master it takes less time. Yes. Revit has a polished interface, and will be easier for new users to ramp up. But, management is probably more difficult in the long run. Aecosim configuration is pretty sprawling and unweidy. Revit info can be transfered with just one file. Doing the same with Aecosim is a nightmare.
    • Easy interaction Revit has turned into one of the industry standards. Revit has a large market share and ecosystem. You will be more likely to find new starters with Revit experience, thereby cutting down the costs.
    • Customer Support. Autodsesk now offers Enterprise level support, equivalent or better than Bentley's ELS. Bentley has next to no reseller channel which affects quality of service for small to medium sized firms; and the support capability for large firms that Bentley services directly seems to have been hollowing out for years.
    • Revit market share means that you are more likely to find components in .rfa format. Aecosim is reliant on its .rfa interpreter which is always going to struggle with every change in the rvt format. May improve when Teigha BIM API's mature.
    • Revit API is much better supported and you will be more likely to find people who can programme little addins and productivity tools. Bentley willl charge you an arm and leg; and resellers are the same.
    • Revit sweet spot is probably small to medium sized jobs 15-20,000 m2. Max 5-6 users per file. 150MB.
    • Revit developments is geared to the mainstream user that will not have large support contracts. The tools tend to be more robust and integrated with the other tools provided before they are released. Aecosim tools are a fragmented collection of little projects that get released on a 'suck it and see' basis where Bentley seems to sit back and wait for the complaints to roll in, indicating that the tool is actually being used and merits more careful attention and testing. I think they call it 'Agile' development. The problem is that there will be a point where no problem is clearly more 'popular' than others because users have given up and not even tried.


    Why AECOsim?

    • AECOsim is more robust and has more capabilities compared to Revit. Yes. When Revit has a problem synch'ing to central, it gets very ugly. OTOH, Aecosim's performance with respect to daily bread and butter workflows like 2d drawing cuts using DEM / BV's, exporting to IFC, editing in Excel etc can hardly be described as robust.
    • Customer Support. Really? See above.
    • Coordination with the browser becomes easier with AECOsim. Yes, coordination with Aecosim is better the coordination file format can be referenced into the authoring app. No need to convert to Navi$ like Revit. Although the latest Revit is starting to provide Navis linking.
    • Software and training costs are cheaper than Revit. Yes, subscriptions and hardware costs are higher for Revit. Important for outsourcing firms or back-offices to Western firms operating offshore that will struggle to provide the top-end spec workstations and network; countering their natural advantage in numbers.
    • Unlike Revit, AECOsim is more interoperable and scalable. Yes. Aecosim is built on Mstn's best-in-class Ref files technology. Revit also suffers from limited design extents and can't deal with elements smaller than 1/32in. Revit import linking of tradition CAD formats like DWG is pretty bad and slow compared to Aecosim. Mstn has also pretty good at providing scalable access to formats like point clouds, raster files and reality meshes.
    • Both products are designed to offer supreme design capabilities. However, when it comes to reaching the market, both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Revit has better API support, and compatibility with Dynamo. This provides a big advantage for workflow automation. Aecosim is not very well connected with GC, and will need to wait on ABD API and Mstn dotNET API improvements.
    • Aecosim has better general 3d modeling tools. Quicker to model generic objects in 3d compared to Revit. New Parametric Solids in Connnect reinforces this. Snapping in 3d etc better. Revit is better at predefined elements like walls, floors, stairs etc.
    • Aecosim has better 2d drafting tools, due to its CAD origins. If you have to deal with a lot of 2d work, it is a better choice.
    • Although Revit boasts of multi-discipline tools, I don't think that you can use all of them in one session like Aecosim. This is important for initial design.
    • Aecosim much better for larger projects due to ability to break down model with Ref files. Although some disciplines like Electrical will be constrained due to inability to break up the analytical model.
    • Aecosim is better integrated with ProjectWise compared to Revit.
    • Aecosim also has the advantage in civils and infrastructure projects; where a lot of info is either in dwg or dgn formats.
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for projects with a lot of surveying, scan, mapping, photogrametry data. E.g. historic conservation, airport, plant type projects.
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for electrical, plant, water, dam type projects where P+ID and other type of things are required.
    • Aecosim should also be the better platform for landscape design. Better support for terrain modeling, reality meshes.
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for large projects during the construction stages; where large amounts of 2d and 3d dwgs, ifc files from the subcontractors need to be managed, overlaid and coordinated.
    • Aecosim does not change its format so often compared to Revit.
    • Aecosim is also the better choice if you want just one platform that can handle any project.
Reply
  • Why Revit?

    • Revit is a bit easy to use and therefore to master it takes less time. Yes. Revit has a polished interface, and will be easier for new users to ramp up. But, management is probably more difficult in the long run. Aecosim configuration is pretty sprawling and unweidy. Revit info can be transfered with just one file. Doing the same with Aecosim is a nightmare.
    • Easy interaction Revit has turned into one of the industry standards. Revit has a large market share and ecosystem. You will be more likely to find new starters with Revit experience, thereby cutting down the costs.
    • Customer Support. Autodsesk now offers Enterprise level support, equivalent or better than Bentley's ELS. Bentley has next to no reseller channel which affects quality of service for small to medium sized firms; and the support capability for large firms that Bentley services directly seems to have been hollowing out for years.
    • Revit market share means that you are more likely to find components in .rfa format. Aecosim is reliant on its .rfa interpreter which is always going to struggle with every change in the rvt format. May improve when Teigha BIM API's mature.
    • Revit API is much better supported and you will be more likely to find people who can programme little addins and productivity tools. Bentley willl charge you an arm and leg; and resellers are the same.
    • Revit sweet spot is probably small to medium sized jobs 15-20,000 m2. Max 5-6 users per file. 150MB.
    • Revit developments is geared to the mainstream user that will not have large support contracts. The tools tend to be more robust and integrated with the other tools provided before they are released. Aecosim tools are a fragmented collection of little projects that get released on a 'suck it and see' basis where Bentley seems to sit back and wait for the complaints to roll in, indicating that the tool is actually being used and merits more careful attention and testing. I think they call it 'Agile' development. The problem is that there will be a point where no problem is clearly more 'popular' than others because users have given up and not even tried.


    Why AECOsim?

    • AECOsim is more robust and has more capabilities compared to Revit. Yes. When Revit has a problem synch'ing to central, it gets very ugly. OTOH, Aecosim's performance with respect to daily bread and butter workflows like 2d drawing cuts using DEM / BV's, exporting to IFC, editing in Excel etc can hardly be described as robust.
    • Customer Support. Really? See above.
    • Coordination with the browser becomes easier with AECOsim. Yes, coordination with Aecosim is better the coordination file format can be referenced into the authoring app. No need to convert to Navi$ like Revit. Although the latest Revit is starting to provide Navis linking.
    • Software and training costs are cheaper than Revit. Yes, subscriptions and hardware costs are higher for Revit. Important for outsourcing firms or back-offices to Western firms operating offshore that will struggle to provide the top-end spec workstations and network; countering their natural advantage in numbers.
    • Unlike Revit, AECOsim is more interoperable and scalable. Yes. Aecosim is built on Mstn's best-in-class Ref files technology. Revit also suffers from limited design extents and can't deal with elements smaller than 1/32in. Revit import linking of tradition CAD formats like DWG is pretty bad and slow compared to Aecosim. Mstn has also pretty good at providing scalable access to formats like point clouds, raster files and reality meshes.
    • Both products are designed to offer supreme design capabilities. However, when it comes to reaching the market, both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Revit has better API support, and compatibility with Dynamo. This provides a big advantage for workflow automation. Aecosim is not very well connected with GC, and will need to wait on ABD API and Mstn dotNET API improvements.
    • Aecosim has better general 3d modeling tools. Quicker to model generic objects in 3d compared to Revit. New Parametric Solids in Connnect reinforces this. Snapping in 3d etc better. Revit is better at predefined elements like walls, floors, stairs etc.
    • Aecosim has better 2d drafting tools, due to its CAD origins. If you have to deal with a lot of 2d work, it is a better choice.
    • Although Revit boasts of multi-discipline tools, I don't think that you can use all of them in one session like Aecosim. This is important for initial design.
    • Aecosim much better for larger projects due to ability to break down model with Ref files. Although some disciplines like Electrical will be constrained due to inability to break up the analytical model.
    • Aecosim is better integrated with ProjectWise compared to Revit.
    • Aecosim also has the advantage in civils and infrastructure projects; where a lot of info is either in dwg or dgn formats.
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for projects with a lot of surveying, scan, mapping, photogrametry data. E.g. historic conservation, airport, plant type projects.
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for electrical, plant, water, dam type projects where P+ID and other type of things are required.
    • Aecosim should also be the better platform for landscape design. Better support for terrain modeling, reality meshes.
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for large projects during the construction stages; where large amounts of 2d and 3d dwgs, ifc files from the subcontractors need to be managed, overlaid and coordinated.
    • Aecosim does not change its format so often compared to Revit.
    • Aecosim is also the better choice if you want just one platform that can handle any project.
Children
  • Some corrections and opinions I think might be valuable for future releases of MSTN & ABD

    Unknown said:
    • When Revit has a problem synch'ing to central, it gets very ugly > This mainly happens when there is a corruption in the file, like a corrupted family. AECOsim has same problem when there is an corrupted element in the model
    • No need to convert to Navi$ like Revit > Don't understand this as Navisworks can read RVT files, conversion is not required. 
    • Although the latest Revit is starting to provide Navis linking >  Latest Revit is not providing Navis links, installing Navisworks Simulate or Manage will add the Navis option into any Revit version when detected during installation
    • Revit also suffers from limited design extents and can't deal with elements smaller than 1/32in.> You do not built at that scale
    • Revit import linking of tradition CAD formats like DWG is pretty bad and slow compared to Aecosim. > Revit is not CAD
    • Mstn has also pretty good at providing scalable access to formats like point clouds, raster files and reality meshes.> Point clouds are supported in Revit

     

    • Although Revit boasts of multi-discipline tools, I don't think that you can use all of them in one session like Aecosim > Yes you can use all of them in one session. All tools are available, see screen capture below

    • Aecosim much better for larger projects due to ability to break down model with Ref files. > What is large? We have done airports, hospitals and master plans in Revit
    • Aecosim should also be the better platform for landscape design. Better support for terrain modeling, reality meshes.> Disagree, site shows triangulations when using terrain/mesh and you can't get rid of that. Site Designer in Revit creates smooth sites (using surfaces) and can import both XML and LandXML
    • Aecosim is also the better platform for large projects during the construction stages; where large amounts of 2d and 3d dwgs, ifc files from the subcontractors need to be managed, overlaid and coordinated. > Coordination can be done in separate software
    • Aecosim is also the better choice if you want just one platform that can handle any project. > What do you mean by any project?

  • When Revit has a problem synch'ing to central, it gets very ugly > This mainly happens when there is a corruption in the file, like a corrupted family. AECOsim has same problem when there is an corrupted element in the model.

    Not really comparable. You would say that ACAD files also get corrupted once in awhile. Recovering is a big pain.

    • No need to convert to Navi$ like Revit > Don't understand this as Navisworks can read RVT files, conversion is not required. 
    • Exactly. You have to convert to allow dwg and revit etc files to be coordinated. And you have to buy Navi$ for the privilege. I find it sadly amusing that Revit users are so used to relying on Navis that they think that this great.
    • Although the latest Revit is starting to provide Navis linking >  Latest Revit is not providing Navis links, installing Navisworks Simulate or Manage will add the Navis option into any Revit version when detected during installation. No. Revit 2018 provides Navis files to be linked. The problem is that the elements in the Navis model is not fully snappable and can't be copied through like Mstn.
    • Revit also suffers from limited design extents and can't deal with elements smaller than 1/32in.> You do not built at that scale .
    • Yes, but it is indicative of Revit's design extents problem. I think that this was the result of Revit enlarging its design  cube / extents to circa 20 miles from 2 miles. The problem is that any dwg or other files that originate in other CAD apps will struggle to convert properly, This will include the tonnes dwg's that will come from the subcontractors. Revit also struggles when importing and linking 3d dwg's which not be cut or show up in 3d views unless converted into the right family etc. While this happens automatically in Mstn, BRICSACD BIM and ADT etc.
    • Revit import linking of tradition CAD formats like DWG is pretty bad and slow compared to Aecosim. > Revit is not CAD Yes. You are right.  It is WORSE than CAD because it can not interop with its older cousins. Autodesk shot it self in the foot by having three separate platforms for AEC- rvt, dwg and navis. BRICSCAD BIM may inherit the AEC world if it can get its rvt read/write Teigha BIM to work. Looking at BRICSCAD, I think most people would not bother with Revit, which costs 3x more, at some point.
    • Mstn has also pretty good at providing scalable access to formats like point clouds, raster files and reality meshes.> Point clouds are supported in Revit
    • Sure, but point clouds already slow traditional CAD apps down like ACAD and Mstn. Revit already struggles without millions of points. And Revit does not do reality meshes at the moment. Mstn has been using for mapping, point cloud surveys, photogrammetry for decades. It's CAD origins and non parametric 'dumbness' is an advantage here. Revit's roots are more targeted / parametric. Can't have everything.
    • Although Revit boasts of multi-discipline tools, I don't think that you can use all of them in one session like Aecosim > Yes you can use all of them in one session. All tools are available, see screen capture below
    • Interesting. I stand corrected. This gives Revit an advantage as Mstn currently does not support multiple active Ref attachments. In most situations, the model would be broken up by discipline, as the project develops. The Aecosim user would need to keep hopping between models using 'Activate' before he can use the different discipline's tools while this would be transparent for the Revit user.

    • Aecosim much better for larger projects due to ability to break down model with Ref files. > What is large? We have done airports, hospitals and master plans in Revit

    • Sure. But have to use top end machines and network set up for this. Also, as mentioned, there is also the 20 mile design extents limitation. We have experience with both and Revit is not really the best platform for large jobbies. Also see Foster's presentation of the new airport in Mexico City at AU 2016 for an idea of 'large'.

    • Aecosim should also be the better platform for landscape design. Better support for terrain modeling, reality meshes.> Disagree, site shows triangulations when using terrain/mesh and you can't get rid of that. Site Designer in Revit creates smooth sites (using surfaces) and can import both XML and LandXML

    Sure, but that is like saying 'it has four wheels, its a Bentley' :-) Apparently, lots of landscape architects find Revit for landscaping shockingly troublesome. “It will make you pull your hair out.”

    • Aecosim is also the better platform for large projects during the construction stages; where large amounts of 2d and 3d dwgs, ifc files from the subcontractors need to be managed, overlaid and coordinated. > Coordination can be done in separate software

    I think that is the Autodesk kool aid Stockholm syndrome speaking. One problem I see with this way of working is that it creates an over reliance on clash detection meetings to resolve problems. There should be ore clash avoidance instead of retroactive clash detection. As mentioned above the old traditional CAD apps are much better at Xref'ing files and have much better situational awareness because of this.

    • Aecosim is also the better choice if you want just one platform that can handle any project. > What do you mean by any project?

    Any project. Roads, railways, bridges, sewers, mapping, surveying, dams, factories, electrical towers, substations, airports, railway stations etc etc

  • Well, I can see that you are a die hard Bentley user and I respect that. For me AECOsim is not the answer because I would like to see a complete overhaul of the software before working with it ever again.

  • With respect, from you answers I don't think you know either very well.

    Do a search for my posts on this website, you will see that I am not blind about a lot of things Aecosim and Mstn fail miserably at... and the slow overall pace of development

    As mentioned, we use both in the office. There is a lot to like about Revit. But I don't think that it is the answer to everything... especially with large projects. Even Autodesk acknowledges its scalbaility and interoperability problems and are looking at things like Project Quantum in an effort to overcome these limitations.

  • Well, I know about your posts, I have read almost all of them. Sometimes when reading your post I really ask myself the question, why are you comparing Revit with ABD? If you know many products so why are you not comparing ABD with AutoCAD Architecture and/or Vectorworks? Revit is not CAD so I will not compare it with any CAD software in the market. Regarding Bentley products, believe me, I do know what Bentley products can do and can't do. 

    Every company has its own way of solving model/project problems and/or issues, this simply has to do with every project being unique. Some projects can be massive (scale wise) and some not.

    There are companies which like to have the whole design in one model and some not. Now whether MS/ABD can handle big projects or not, it still requires time to load and update the model when changes are made to it. We split our models, this helps with reducing loading time and users/designers can pay attention to particular detail(s) in the model. I mean, loading time of a massive site (i.e. 7,50km x 4,80km) takes up time, whether using MS, ABD or Revit. Splitting the model reduces the loading time and it also makes it is easier handing over your model if required. 

    So it is not about bashing a software it is about your workflow regarding how you would tackle any project issues/problems and which tools are you going to use to solve that. There is nothing 100% perfect, whether it is a software or your car. You use it because it helps you with your daily stuff and/or work. Every software has its pros and cons, so every software is powerful in its on way.