Leading architecture firms pen open letter to Autodesk over rising costs, sluggish development
Comments
-
Grabowski, in latest upFront.ezine (subscribe: grabowski@telus.net) says:
"Architects understand their needs better than do software-only houses, and so perhaps a neo-IntelliCAD effort is necessary. This is conceivable, as large architecture firms already retain programming teams engaged in customization and who work regularly with ancillary software, such as the collection of crucial-to-design programs from Robert McNeel & Assoc. To it, add a BimRv backend and change-control API from the Open Design Alliance, throw in ARES-based 2D RVT/IFC drawing generation from Graebert, host IFC 4.x data on Bricsys' massive-data-handling BricsCAD -- and a new open-BIM star may be born in less time than it takes for Autodesk to come up with its next code name for neo-Revit.
Autodesk may be keen on capturing a portion of the world’s largest industry, but construction needs feeding from capable design software. The future, according to large architectural firms, is all about the conceptual stage of design, with AI to handle the detail work, and then pipelining data to automated construction machinery, much of it off-site. The future, in this scenario, may hold no place for Revit.
0 -
Interesting to note that the three progressive Cad orgs mentioned - ODA, Graebert, Brics - are all European. Graebert and Brics are competitors but ODA serves them both.
0 -
I like how the article ends in "cul-de-sac".
Being a civil engineer that writes software for our company, I would say the biggest lump of money left on the table is the Civil3D mess.
Its not that civil is somehow the most important, its only one part of getting things built.
However, you do that wrong, and it drags hard on all adesk or anyone is trying to do.
I wrote about this in xyht, look up my name. You need parametric model schemes that work to get the building and "up to the building" industries working together. Its like how the music industry needed the .mp3 format, and then others for video and so on that allow ipods and other players to be made at reasonable costs.
In civil, the parametric models for roads are decent, but then the implementation of that is very restrictive in Civil3d. They tried to contain the models in drawings, which is a major no-no when sharing data and allowing "just what is needed" access.
The feature line and pipe networks tools are dead wrong in their underlying models. Adesk should know that, as we use the same separate horizontal and vertical methods to design them as roads, yet they decided to do tinker-toy type model called "part-based" which people deal with but its a big failure. I've worked on major road projects and everyone knows utilities are the most critical to schedule. The tools to design them must implement how we actually design and they don't so few people do 3d models of anything but what they are forced to. Generally that is at the end of the project, so throw away the design benefits. Its such a waste.
So you get civil firms using a whole mix of solutions, including hand drafting on the computer (minimal automation), and that makes a divide from the architectural firms. That stalls momentum on the whole "make everything parametric" idea and here we are.BTW, the fact that a letter is being written is only saying:
"Adesk, we are reliant on you. We have no alternative, please stop beating us."
To which autodesk replies:
"Improve your morale."
The solution is to find an alternative set of software and workflows. That is good healthy American competition.
I say American, but honest humans around the world, and bacteria, know its how life works.
Autodesk did so well on its tools, marketing, and timing that they are way ahead in the race.
They know it, and are enjoying telling us our real opinion when we want it.
How silly of us to fool ourselves with the language in that letter...ha ha
To me Bricscad is a real hope because all my tools work on it the same as autocad. Its actually very easy to do so, and I have extensive lisp and .net code sets. I don't even think about if I am coding for acad or bcad, its that easy.
I compile to .vlx and .des for lisp with a couple clicks, and my .net setup compiles to 3 bcad versions and 4 acad ones with one batch file.
The catastrophic event that may heavily shift us to bcad is when acad cannot be run through flexlm (network licenses).
Its a mix until then.0 -
How do they expect Autodesk to take them seriously if they cite Microsoft as an example of customer-centricity??? They're the exact antithesis of that, witness Windows 10.
0
