Bentley Architecture vs Revit vs Archicad

For the sake of non duplication I refer you to my recent post a few weeks back.

communities.bentley.com/.../bentley-architecture-vs-revit-who-will-win-the-global-race.aspx

I am also a diehard microstation user.  I used it simultaneously with AutoCAD but eventually dropped using AutoCAD because I always felt that it was more graphically dynamic and flexible.  Besides that it used to be the case that one could get a lot more work and better pay because of the quality of projects and number of practices that used microstation.

There is still a lot of indecision about BIM but I guess everyone has accepted that it is a change that is inevitable.  

A lot of Architectural practices are not advocates of what is called the bottom up approach, (the opposite I have coined as being the “back to front approach” but is more commonly referred to as the Top down approach.) This is foreign ground to them  . . . “You don’t build a 3d model until you have got everything designed  . . .!!! “ you know the drill . . .plans . . .elevations . . sections . . .then model . .!!!.  The good thing about the BIM revolution is that it is forcing such decision makers gradually out of their comfort zone. Let’s not forget that a lot of  these practices still have directors and those who call the shots who started out with the T square and drawing board.  Such people are still coming to grips with CAD let alone BIM. Funny enough though , if you talk to some younger architects in the field they still have only a very vague idea of what Building information Modelling is.  The preference therefore is to stick with the tried and true.   The trend right now is to hold out for as long as possible doing things the way they have always been done, a sort of let’s wait and see approach.

I recently heard that a couple of die hard microstation firms in the UK had  a few days ago employed Revit specialist to assist in the conversion of the practice from microstation to Revit BIM.  This should be very worrying for Bentley.  Granted Bentlley has a firm hold on the large players but this is purely because traditionally large infrastructure development was carried out on microstation as the chosen platform because of its better handling of Reference files and other reasons already mentioned by Travis above. The emanating problem however is that the majority of the medium sized contractors (and these will become the main drivres ) have never even heard of Bentley architecture let alone another Bentley release, with another fancy name, another goal post shift, more complications, another hill to climb (not that I don’t like a challenge) , and possibly help files that are purely descriptive with no examples and explained processes. I have really had to scratch and claw to build my knowledge up to its present capacity. Sorry to say Revit is fast becoming the GLOBALLY ADOPTED BIM Standard.

I believe however Bentley have the resources to address this situation in a more aggressive manner. However having lost a lot of ground and continuing to lose it there is yet work to be done.  If not, I predict that it will become increasingly non cost effective to continue to use Bentley products for a variety of reasons.  However it is still early days.

As someone who fell for the marketing buzz and spent a lot adopting Revit only to dump and return to Bentley here are the main problems we found with Revit vs BA

Design restrictions - Revit expects you to design the way it wants you to design. Revit is very much an component based application. By that I mean if you want to create a stair you only have the limited stair options. If these options aren't available in Bentley then you can use traditional modelling techniques like using tried and tested solids to get the design you want. You can then apply the information required by BIM to the object(s) after. Its a difficult concept to grasp. When people take up BA they expect the door, wall, stair, etc tools are the answer to everything. The reality is you have to be flexible and use the wide array of tools available. That's where Revit fails. This can kill a project

Not Scalable - Because Revit uses the Single Model mentality it does have trouble with large projects with lots of people. Whilst Worksets is a nice concept, the reality it fails to deliver if the project gets beyond 4 people. Syncronisation issues, who has what, who owns what and so forth. Size is also an issue. You are looking at huge file sizes which have it's own hardware and networking issues. This can be catastrophic on a project.

Not interoperable - The reality is architects don't use a single piece of software. Nothing talks to Revit therefore combining Revit with other design apps is difficult. We shelled out tonnes of money on Navisworks to do clash. I did not think for a second Navis couldn't read a Revit file. That was a harsh lesson. Autocad can't read a Revit file. Revit 2011 cannot read 2012 so if you expect working with a consultant on the same project using a different version of Revit would not be a problem. Think again. What I like about Bentley is they make an effort to be interoperable and it shows in the array of file formats that can be read. And going between 2D, 3D, BIM, Clash, visualisation, etc I can use a single formats and pull in files from others.

Price - We got a good price going from Microstation to BA. Revit cost us a bomb. Not only in software but in training and hiring in a consultant to work with us on workflow. Whilst the initial interface of Revit might look friendly, when you try and get into the deep stuff, no video or tutorial can help. Like you do with BA, You need to train - simple.

BA has its downfalls, theres no doubt about that, but we find we can always get a project, presentation, whatever it is, delivered in the Bentley stuff. We often failed miserably on Revit - perhaps it was just the way we were working. Who knows. Good luck.

Brian J:

Thank you for providing a real production-level comparison between Revit and Bentley BIM.  It is refreshing to hear someone share what reality is like, after the Autodesk marketing pitch wears off, when the software has to perform in production and support a BIM process.  With any BIM application there are two critical things that are needed, proper training and a thorough understanding of the BIM process (collaboration, communication, coordination) and how it differs from CAD workflows.

-Travis

Hi BrianJ

I am also a Diehard Microstation user.

However, I am a Revit user by my company's policy recently.

Revit and Microstation will be mutually used for the time being for the cause which you showed.

I approve of all your opinions. 

However, the advantages of Bentley which you show is the advantages of Microstation, and is not the advantage of Bentley Building.

Though regrettable, there is Bentley Building Solution in the middle of the pursued to Revit.

Although AECOsimBD is pursuing Revit, a hand is full of it by improving processing of a view at most. Parametric does not reach.The system of grid which crosses a plane and section and elevation does not exist. I hope to complete a product carefully to the last.

Revit will have a schedule with structure and MEP with Design from the next version.

I continue waiting for Bentley's improvement eagerly.

regards.

Interesting links about adopting to Revit....which may or may not be useful to you.

www.eatyourcad.com/article.php

1. Parametrics:

There are a lot of problems with the particular brand of parametrics that Revit uses... which is very history-based. Bentley has an opportunity to leapfrog this. Even in the MCAD world, there: is recognition that the history-based techniques have their limits, and moves to accommodate more flexible modeling techniques.

I think that the new HUD dimensions are really cool and can be a lot more powerful. Driving dimensions and local rules-based constraints would be great productivity boosters. I think even Bentley realises that they can not rely on GC adoption alone i.e. a big increase on scripting amongst the user base for productivity gains. Maybe Bentley should get LEDAS to look at this. They seemed to have bolted this onto Sketchup and Rhino fairly quickly.

2. Solids Modeling:

This was the big differentiator for BA in the past. Revit's parametrics was/is powerful but restrictive. But 10 years on, the old Triforma stuff is looking pretty passe and needs a big refresh.  It seems that the Feature Solids stuff does not integrate with forms or BDD's Data Group System very well. Even GC isn't very well integrated, but that is easy enough to be a firm item on the roadmap... ?

The TriForma Forms / DGS don't even integrate very well with Mstn platform tools like fence operations. Apps like EliteCAD, which is also Parasolids-based and very similar to BBD in its approach to modeling, highlights a lot of the lack of real updates to the tools.

A lot of things are just really small usability refinements. Also look at the way Bonzai3d's offset/booleans tools work. A shape can be used to imprint a subtractive cut in a solid. Mstn can do that as well. The flanking faces of the 'cavity' can then be moved. Mstn can do that as well, although it has trouble finding and offering up the faces to the user. But with Bonzai3d, when the face is extended past the solid's volume, the subtraction or 'hole feature' becomes an extrusion or 'boss feature'. With Mstn, the shape just disappears.... leaving the user with that 'workaround-needed-again' feeling. Why can't the tool switch between hole and boss code smoothly?  It seems like each tool has been developed isolation without any thought of handling call(back)s between tools, or composition or wider UI issues/opportunities.

In EliteCAD, window objects or boolean operations can span automatically over multiple solids or walls. Bonzai3d can also dynamically recognise other solids that intersect the solid that is being modified. So, if a dormer is being extended past a roof plane, the boolean tool automatically pulls the roof plane into the 'working' set. With Mstn, the user has to preselect everything, and if there are any changes you'll have to select the relevant solids again.

A lot of the stuff is scattered around the different tools... and really UI-based. Maybe the way the tools which were set up 15 years ago is obsolete because they all came about before the OO craze. Maybe we are waiting for a general overhaul of the underlying Mstn event -handling, state-machine, dependency framework plumbing model. V9?

DDD is way overdue for an update. Maybe compatibility with DWG Dynamic Blocks and Parametric Drawing will start to drive these changes. I suppose a lot of the groundwork could be borrowed from the new-ish Civil Geometry platform? Even mid-range apps like VectorWorks have constraints... and solid modeling these days.

There is a lot of in house tech available.  Hopefully, after ABD is released (2012), it would be stable enough for things like GC, FS/DDD can be integrated (2014?)

3. Mstn Platform:

Yes. Mstn is a pretty awesome platform. But, I suspect we architects have the largest herd of users that are using vanilla Mstn without a vertical. Now with the pressure to adopt BIM, and more complex assemblies of 3d models, there needs to be a lot more integration of the platform tools with BBD. The BBD dev team will need to do or delve into more heavy stuff that was previously done at platform. Things like editing-cells-in-place probably requires a lot of surgery 'deep-deep-under-cover' in platform territory that will be disruptive to all the verticals regardless if it is useful to them or not.