Saturday, December 16, 2017

Cloud City


I was just reading over comments - and enjoying memories of doing the Revit sync two-step.

There was always that one asshole who would work all afternoon and neglect to save to central before leaving for the day.  I would come in bright and early the next morning to see if I could convince Revit to behave like a functional piece of software - only to have them drag in at Architect:30, sync, and find out that everything I had managed to do just got blown away (well, the next time I synced anyway - since you didn't actually get any indication when someone else did it).

I jokingly mentioned one time that the only advantage to Revit being such a slow, unproductive piece of shit was that when it would crash or otherwise eat itself, you wouldn't really lose a whole lot of work. Obviously you might've burned a lot of daylight, but chances were you didn't really get anywhere.

Of course, I was always looking for any reason to say 'fuck it',  export what I was working on to ACAD,  and finish up in a fraction of the time and stress. I would even have time to open the model one last time and make sure the lights were located properly (which was the only thing anyone else honestly seemed to care about).

Half the time they didn't actually know that I wasn't working in Revit to complete my drawings - except that my titleblock would have the correct project information (address, job name, etc.) instead of the bullshit that someone slapped in as a placeholder when they set the model up.

I would have my sheets set up so they showed up on the list on their coversheet (once I even imported my drawings from ACAD onto drafting views in Revit so the drawings themselves appeared on the sheets).

It wasn't too difficult to tell I wasn't actually using Revit though, and someone would occasionally get butthurt that I didn't have my dick in the Revit pencil sharpener. They would complain to my boss (who didn't really care, but who also got tired of listening to people complain).

They finally wore him (and by extension me) down into doing a handful of projects in Revit - every single one of which was a massive waste of time and effort for zero gain.

One of the big selling points of converting our office over to BIM/Revit was the ability to charge more for our services - but in reality most projects that had BIM as a deliverable had zero additional fee (or time), and after a certain point the 'all Revit all the time' cabal decided that even if BIM  wasn't requested (or paid for) that those projects would be done in Revit anyway.

Some of them had it in their head that the additional experience in Revit made it a good idea - while others were actually operating under the delusion that they could complete projects faster/better with Revit (despite copious amounts of evidence to the contrary).

The most hilarious part was watching them generate models for tenant finish-outs that we had already received CAD layouts for (and which just needed to be reviewed for local codes and slapped on our titleblock).

One of these came through with a 1 month deadline - but within a the next day or so, the deadline was abruptly cut in half. Everybody else flew into a panic. I smiled because having the CAD layout meant that I didn't have to wait for anyone to generate a model to get to work (most Revit projects would only end up getting kicked off to everyone else after Architectural had spent most of the fee and moved the project deadline closer in order to get a 25% max. completed model for everyone else to work in).

Once they did complete their unnecessary Reviting all I had to do was export their plan (and then point out the mistakes they made). Even funnier was that we did three projects for the same client, but each one had to fit into a differently sized strip-mall shell.

I was able to copy what I did on the first project to the other two and adjust as necessary (then go work on my next dozen or so projects), while the Reviteers had to design three separate models. Even if they had copied the first model over to create the next one, I  can't imagine what would've happened to my stuff when they started adjusting it.

I can, however, imagine the words I  would have used to describe my displeasure with the process (and at least 90% of them would have been the word 'fuck').

As in: 'Fuck Revit', 'Fuck Autodesk', 'Fuck Revitards, and' Fuck You For Fucking with my Fucking job you Fucking Fuckheaded Fucks'.

Au Revoir,
Mssr. SkullFuck

Next Time:?

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Autodesk Regrets To Inform You That You Have 15 Minutes To Clean Out Your Desk.

Sunny Day, Sweepin' The Clouds Away...

I woke up this morning to an entertaining article in the San Francsico Chronicle about a certain company called 'Autodesk' that is currently in the process of laying off 1,150 employees (13% of its workforce) as they 'restructure'.  This follows a layoff of 925 people in February of 2016.

So, why has Autodesk been shedding people like a Revitard sheds their last few functioning brain cells?   If you listen to Chief Executive 'Andrew Anagnost (who pulls down $5 million a year), he claims "We're taking this restructuring action from a position of strength," and contends that "the move was intended to change the focus of investments during a 'growth phase' of the transition to cloud delivery".

That last part sounds exactly like to was pulled from the bullshit generator.  The reality is, Autodesk has been slowly falling behind the curve for some time now.  Anything its brutally overpriced software can do, there are alternative software packages and third-party apps that can do the same (or better) for a fraction of the cost (or no cost at all).

They've still got a few industries by the balls - mostly thanks to hard work on their part (and the part of their 'true believers') of getting Revit - or at least BIM (and Revit = BIM dontchaknow?) required as part of the deliverables for some kinds of projects.

Autodesk's doubling down on 'The Cloud' has led me to be convinced that the majority of its people are complicit in an ongoing plot that I have dubbed 'Cloud Woo' (as a nod to the pejorative term 'Quantum Woo' coined to describe the act of justifying irrational beliefs or weak arguments by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics - which they almost certainly don't understand).

Anyone with a functioning brain has known that 'The Cloud' more or less became a meaningless buzzword years ago - another article (from way back in 2011) does an excellent job of explaining what basically happened when everyone started tossing the term around carelessly to describe everything and anything (whether or not it was actually related to 'cloud computing' or any of the other concepts related to it).

While things like 'distributed computing' are still a very real thing (and storing things on remote servers has long been a thing - even prior to someone coming up with this term) - practitioners of 'Cloud Woo' have imbued it with magical powers wherein anything they slap the term 'Cloud' onto suddenly becomes more powerful and desirable.

I've railed about it before, but the concept of  a piece of software (and/or files) that I depend on being beholden to remotely operated and maintained equipment leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth.  Every online/browser based app I've ever used was a clusterfuck, and would often eat itself due to poor coding.

I'm already sick to goddamned fuck of having 'Steam' be the gatekeeper of my games - especially as it seems to want to install updates every single goddamned time I open it.  If it goes tits up, I'm sitting there waiting for it to come back from space before I can run games that are installed ON MY MOTHERFUCKING HARD DRIVE.

I mean it's bad enough if the server with my CAD (or in the past - Revit) license is being slow - now imagine the whole the whole shooting match is floating around out there in fucking space, just waiting for you to have an important deadline to bend you over and fuck you directly in the ass (and that's before you get to hackers, etc.).

Nothing is 100% fail safe, but I can make backups, and have the option of using different hardware if necessary - the idea of building in more fail PRONE shit into the process is thoroughly idiotic.  Autodesk's profit margins still seem to be maintaining, but here's hoping that these layoffs and 'restructuring' are actually the canary in the coal mine signalling major fucking problems.

 Because at least where it comes to Revit, they've got some major fucking problems.

Fuck Autodesk, Fuck Revit, Fuck Andrew Anagnost, and if you don't like it - FUCK YOU.


Next Time: Cloud City

The Ever Morphing Nature Of The Revit Model

Guten Tag Motherfuckers,

There I go again, working on another gigantic school - which neither the motherfucking Architect (or Engineer) will come up off a set of plans for (unless we fork over cash - and that's not happening).

Instead, we converted a set of .pdfs into ACAD - which, as long as the .pdfs were generated by a computer, works sort of 'meh' (as opposed to .pdfs from scans - which work sort of like total garbage).

Keep in mind that if I were, for some reason, sold on the idea of Reviting, that we would have to shell out even more cash for the honor of using someone's shitty Revit model (at which point we would also get sucked into the never-ending cycle of requesting updated Revit models as what I call 'The Ever Morphing Nature Of The Revit Model' starts to take effect.

Now, I'm already at the mercy of people sending me outdated plans - but as long as they don't make any major changes to them, then the people installing my systems in the field can either figure it out (or it will be obvious that changes were made - and we can issue change orders to request more money for having to redesign it).

Not so when it comes to the gooey cluster (of fucks) that is a Revit model.  I would continuously be getting the latest model - with the latest changes, but no easy way of keeping track of what had changed/tweaked.  No way to overlay the old model over the new (and still be able to actually see anything), so any number of changes could sneak through, only to pop up later as 'mistakes'.

In this particular instance, I got all the way through cleaning up the drawings and inserting my devices - before I noticed something on the very last drawing on the second floor.  An 'amendment' had been added to some of the sheets (sometimes more than one) in addition to some 'addendums' (both of which probably should've just been referred to as 'revisions' to keep things straight).

What caught my eye was that they had started adding devices to some of the rooms - but when I flipped back through the rest of the set - not all of the sheets included the latest 'amendement'.  I contacted the Electrical Engineer to see if they could shed any light on it, but instead they referred me to the company that handled the projects documents (because, of course, they weren't doing it in house).

I had already gotten into contact with this company once to request a set of the Electrical HVAC .pdfs (since they didn't provide them with the set they gave me) in order to locate all of the devices that were showing up on those drawings.

They sent me what should've been the 'latest and greatest', and indeed - every single sheet seemed to include all of the 'amendments' and 'addendums' EXCEPT one - the very sheet that had made me aware of the fact that the set I had been provided was incomplete.  I pointed this out to them (but never got a response).

Oh - and while I was setting up the drawings, I also found that their views clipped entire parts of the building (I'm ignoring that though - I just sketched in the parts that were missing, and if any equipment is missing due to their fuckup, then we'll deal with that later.

Unfortunately I've had to put that entire project on hold in order to finalize an exponentially more massive project that another firm actually did the design on (they are kind of partners of ours - but the owner and installer were getting antsy because that firm is slower than fuck).

I thought I was more or less done, when they came back with additional changes to submit - but then they dropped the bomb on me Friday.  I had completely forgotten that a previous submittal had required me to use the customer's layer system (actually a fairly easy fix - except that there are probably 150 drawings that will need to be updated).

If it had been done in Revit (besides the file being several gig in size - or split up into a dozen models), I'm sure there would be Revit standards (or there are some being developed) that would have to be adhered to - and it wouldn't be as simple as fixing a few layers (which I've streamlined by dropping a couple of objects into each drawing that are on the correct layers and simply matching properties as necessary).

It's par for the course with these kinds of projects (i.e. government projects).  I actually went out of my way for a long time to avoid ever working directly for the government (the area I live in has a number of  federal installations), but their projects pay well (and pay on time) - they just have teams of people whose job it is to nitpick every little detail down to the gnat's ass (only to come back and make changes that made all of those details moot.

In the meantime - I got a comment on my last post from reader 'clark' regarding his three year experience with Revit, and subsequent branching out after 33 years of working in architectural firms on his own to do residential design. It's always nice to hear about someone successfully throwing off the shackles of Revit and going back to productivity and sanity.

He mentions a number of pertinent items, such as Revit's obsession with things that are not actually related to Architecture or Engineering (or drafting/modeling for that matter), leaving you spending half of your time chasing your tail - or the fact that nobody past the Revitards who never leave the office give a fuck about the 'benefits' of Revit/BIM.

They just want their drawings so they can build the buildings - and not have to wait while some simpleton fuck diddles themselves with the Revit dick.  I couldn't tell you all of the rookie mistakes I've seen in Revit models (especially by Reviteers who are patting themselves on the back for making such an awesome looking model).

My favorite part was where he says "having too much knowledge about the actual construction process was actually a liability".  That nails the problem perfectly - what you end up with is an office full of people who have 'mastered' modeling buildings in Revit, but don't know the first thing about how those buildings will be built (or the engineered systems inside those buildings will be installed).

The fact is, the building is going to be built - by people who know what they are doing no less, and they don't care about your fucking model.  They need plans, elevations, details, etc., that are correct (and if they aren't, they want them corrected - quickly).  Most could probably do the majority of the goddamned thing off of a napkin sketch (by someone who knows what they are doing).

Everything else is just busy work for idiots.

Fuck Revit, Fuck Autodesk, and if you don't like it - then FUCK YOU.


Next Time: Autodesk 'Restructures'

Monday, October 23, 2017

Another One Bites The Revit Dick

Howdy-Ho There Boys And Girls!!!

I received a comment on a post I did a while ago - reader "Seysearles" was deep-diving into the shallow end of the Revit pool (and like another commenter, most likely googled 'fuck Revit', and found himself here).

His cries for help echoed many other people's Revit experience, and he is left at a pivotal point in his career - as I told him, he basically has two options:
a) Shut the fuck up and use Revit.
b) Tell everyone using Revit to shut the fuck up, and to go fuck themselves.

Of course, I picked 'b', never looked back, and have never been happier.  Obviously, that may not be an option for those who made the mistake of going into Architecture - but, on the other hand, you will notice that most actual Architects don't use Revit (or any software for that matter), leaving that to the next generation of low-paid idiots (almost none of whom will actually ever become Architects themselves).

I posted a link to an article a while back called "Want To Be An Architect?; - Don't Learn Revit"
 The thrust of the article wasn't actually anti-Revit, just that the discipline of Architecture isn't a piece of software, and tying yourself to one (whether it be Autocad, Archicad, Microstation, or Revit) is counter-productive to the real goal.

To hear Revitards talk about it, Revit IS architecture (or Engineering, etc.).  That's the equivalent of saying that my roll-around toolbox IS a mechanic (or a car).  To most of them their Revit model is also the 'end product', rather than the building that is actually constructed (and which the firm was paid to design).  The amusing part about that, is that the second the building starts getting constructed, it will start to deviate from their carefully crafted model.

I've known a handful of people who were actually on a track to become Architects who absolutely loved Revit - but, almost without fail, they were the ones being put in charge of managing teams of Revitbots, rather than wasting their time dicking around endlessly with Revit.  They might occasionally open a model to look at something in it, but the rest of the time they were looking at, and marking up .pdfs or (gasp) hardcopy.

They were also the ones who would start to venture out into the field to see how construction was being done, and seeing the problems that crop up - even on a very carefully designed building.  The things that Revitbots spend most of their day doing aren't what end up resulting in costly changes and redesign - it's the stuff that only a skilled designer/architect is going to catch because they are thinking about the project as an actual building, and not simply a model.

Unfortunately, I can't offer any real help to someone who has only just now found themselves neck-deep in the Revit swamp.  On the upside - if they do decide to stick with Revit, they've got the advantage of having considerably more resources (and a *slightly* less shitty version of Revit) than those who dove onto the bleeding edge a decade ago with their dicks out.

Of course, that also means you get to navigate the fifteen metric fucktons of misinformation, disinformation, outdated information, and other confused and frustrated attempts out there at wringing anything useful out of Revit.  If you spend any time on any of the various Revit forums, you will quickly discover that no matter how you are using Revit, it is wrong.

How you are supposed to determine (or have determined) the 'right' way to use Revit is never really discussed, which has often led me to believe that many of the people on these forums are simply trolling in order to exacerbate the pain and suffering new/intermediate users were already experiencing.

I've mentioned the way that people on these forums immediately seize on any post where someone (in desperation) is trying to communicate something that they need done - and make the mistake of referring back to how they did something in ACAD (or other software), or dare to question Revit in any way when it refuses to do something consistently (or at all).

This leads to the majority of questions/comments leading off with swearing an oath of fealty towards Revit, and then (while flogging oneself for being so ignorant and impertinent as to need to ask a question) meekly presenting ones dilemma.  Even then, it's fairly common for them to be excoriated by some self-appointed 'Revit Ubermench'.

Are you using third-party families?  Well, goddamned you are a stupid fucking idiot for doing that - you should design them all yourself!!!  Are you designing them all yourself?  Well, that's why you are running into problems dumbass - why aren't you using one of the brazillion existing families out there?  Running into text problems? Oh - that's a windows setting, unless it's a known bug that was fixed in the 2017.2 patch (unless it doesn't), or are we actually talking about two different issues?

Oh - but that's fixed in the 2018 release, (except that it's not).  Apparently the text tool (which was a piece of crap from the get-go) was replaced (another tacit admission that they KNEW it was a piece of crap from the get-go), and so now YOU the user get to suffer while you get the size of your older text boxes corrected (not to mention any projects that might pop back up in the future and require converting, before being fixed).

And that's before you get to problems with the googolplex of view settings.

('b' is looking more and more appealing all the time isn't it?)

Fuck Revit, Fuck everyone propagating Revit, and just... eat a bag of dicks or something (and no hiding them in your ass - EAT YOUR DICKS!!!).

-Fulks Luck

Next Time: The Ever Morphing Nature Of The Revit Model.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

A Revit Fan Chimes In.


So there I am, minding my own business, when an anonymous reader posts a fairly extensive rundown of their experience over the last 30 years in the field of Architecture.  I was intrigued, since it's fairly rare that anyone who isn't a full-on hater of Revit comments here (unless they are trolling or spamming), so I allowed myself to give them an impartial read.

Their over-arching premise seems to be that, despite ungodly amounts of time, effort, and money having been invested in it over the years, nobody has ever actually managed to take into account the needs of the design professional.  I would probably add (as I have in the past) that trying to quantify such elaborate disciplines so that any moron with a computer and a software license can do it is fairly impossible.

Pencil, rapidograph, Versacad, Microstation, Autocad, Revit (pin bar mylar drafting - thanks for the update!) overlays, etc. etc. are simply tools or techniques, each with their own advantages/disadvantages and learning curves.  The ones that have gone by the wayside (especially manual methods) had obvious constraints, but early computer systems also had their own limitations.

While my attitude towards Revit should be fairly clear to anyone with even a passing familiarity with my rants, I've always tried to stress that it is the electrical portion of the software specifically that is the focus of my disdain.  It was obvious from the get-go that it had started as an architectural tool, with the Engineering portions slapped on as an afterthought.

Obviously the Architectural/Structural portions were developed more thoroughly, so it wasn't surprising when Architects and Structural Engineers took to it like pedophiles at a poorly chaperoned field trip. It was the first time most of the people I worked with had been exposed to a 3D design tool (as I've mentioned before, I had spent years designing site and interior lighting in 3D).

Besides the advantage of more fully developed software for their disciplines, they also had the combined efforts of dozens of Architects, designers/drafters, and even one Mechanical designer who literally damned near killed himself beating his head against the Revit machine to make it work (at least something) like it was advertised.

All I had were a dozen projects at any given time to get the fuck out the door - and a couple of shitty 'tutorials' that didn't even come close to addressing what to do when you were dropped head first into the pool of shit that were early (and even later on) Revit models in a never-ending process of flux (and ironically, taking longer and longer to complete).

In theory, this would've given me longer to complete them - and made up for the extra time necessary to overcome the plethora of obstacles Revit would throw up at any given moment.  In reality, I no longer had any way of knowing what the status of my projects were any given time.  If I walk away from a CAD file, and come back to it later, it's exactly the fuck where I left it.

Even if the Architects had been busy rearranging the floor plan - as soon as I exported a new one and dropped it in, the worst that could happen is that I would need to rearrange or maybe add/delete a few things, and adjust my circuits accordingly.  If I walked away from a Revit file for even a day or two, I might come back to find everything fucked.

And that's just goddamned unacceptable.

Anyway, back to what this guy was saying.  I honestly don't know what doing large scale architecture
projects was like in ACAD, and I can imagine it could turn into an unholy nightmare - but the 'how many fucking layers does it take to design an outhouse?' comment struck me as funny, because I had developed a set of field house drawings for a school (including architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing AND electrical).

I did the whole project in one file - without paper space, and when I was done I had maybe a dozen layers for each discipline just to keep everything straight.  Out of all of the other functions and minutiae ACAD can get you stuck fucking with, I simply don't use 99% of it.  I know quite a few of the settings/commands that can be tweaked to get the results I want (but I don't have to keep them in my head, because the Internet is a massive repository of information on ACAD).

I was amazed when I first started at my current job to find that someone had somehow allowed a metric fuckton of layers (and other junk) to invade their template - and refused to be purged.  I noticed that their files would run into trouble after a few times of cutting/pasting information (you would go to 'paste' and nothing would happen - no error, just 'derp').  I knew there had to be some relation between this and all the extra junk (that was bloating the file size).

Fortunately, after a few minutes of browsing the Internet, I ran across a command called 'write block' (-wblock), which I already knew about, but when you go to write the block, you can specify '*' and it will basically create a new file with everything in it - sans all of the embedded blocks/layers/bullshit.  The result was a smaller/leaner file without all of the bazillion layers/linetypes/etc. - and you could now cut/paste to your hearts delight.

I will admit, there are a number of commands/toggles that could be better arranged, or have better defaults (and maybe some prompts), but having been around computers (and CAD) since way before there were mice connected to them, I'm fairly adept at working my way through things - and the ACAD text window gives you a running tab of what is happening at any given time (so you know that it is having a problem instead of Revit just fucking dinging at you).

I don't use the 'ribbon' or even the classic menus - just a handful of commands in the QAT, and a few pop up menus (properties, the text window, layer manager, etc. that come up on a second screen - leaving me with just... all kinds of room to see what I'm doing.  I also love the ability to flip on viewports and be able to simultaneously look at up to eight different places in my drawing.

How I operate mostly just depends on where my left hand is at any given moment (I'm left handed - although I do keep my mouse buttons set up the same as a right hander)  if it's on the mouse, I will click a command, but if it's on the keyboard, I can quickly type a command (or shortcut - and not have to worry about hitting two keys and starting a fucking unwanted command like in Revit).

Now, the funniest comment - having to do with pulling up an older project.  Try to do it in Revit.

The first thing you will be doing is waiting for half an hour (or more) while it upgrades to your current version (and good luck if it has any problem doing so).  Obviously if the CAD user didn't know about 'relative path' then it's easy for xrefs to get fucked up (I can feel you - because I just got done fixing nearly 200 sheets that some idiots handed over to us to do 'as builts' - including some details that the morons had saved onto their desktop instead of the folder with the rest of the files.

As far as having to drill down through every drawing and change everything to black - could you not simply plot monochrome?  (Maybe not)  But in Revit it wouldn't have been 15 seconds, because you would STILL be waiting for it to convert.  I could see where it would be a bitch to have to go back and use ACAD after having gotten to your level of Revit mastery though - I can imagine it would be like trying to issue a set of drawings on a typewriter.

I like to complain about the garbage files I get from Architects - but I do realize that the files they are sending me are dependent on Revit being able to export to CAD correctly.  What makes me amused is when I see an actual set of their sheets or .pdfs - and it's plain to see right there in their drawings due to view range fuckups (from the 16 quadrillion view range settings).  Honestly, I actually enjoy going through and cleaning up a set of drawings for my use - and it's a great way to get familiar with the building.

To tell the truth, in my current job, I usually have less problems out of Architects, and more out of Electrical Engineers/Designers (the ones whose job I used to do) who don't understand what is necessary for the systems I am designing to meet code (or even work at all).  I just got done issuing a building for a college that was showing zero sprinkler equipment, and had conflicting information for the elevator (due to a typical detail they dropped in - and nonsense on their drawing).

Hopefully one day you will get to have the pleasure of dealing with an MEP firm that is tying the Revit anchor around their balls.  Most simply can't justify the cost - especially since many are using older 'stand alone' copies of CAD (nothing that Autodesk has added in the last decade really has much affect on drafters - and you can download the latest version of TrueView for free if you need to open a newer .dwg file).

It was enough of a pain in the ass to keep up with Revit when all of the disciplines were in the same building - have fun constantly uploading/downloading massive files and watching as it eats itself (especially as Revit newbies attempt to figure out how the hell to use it, quickly burn out, and start to resent you - more than they probably already do).

Everyone can take Revit and stick it up their ass (sideways) - or use it (fuck it - it's no longer my problem).


Next Time: Another One Bites The Revit Dick

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

An Open Letter To The Revitards Who Designed This Fucking Hotel

Cheerio - Pip Pip!

I spent a few days playing 'catch-up' with the never-ending barrage of comments coming from the layers and layers of bureaucracy involved on the half-dozen or so government projects I've been trying to finish for the last year or so - and then got started on a seven story, 50,000+ s.f. hotel.

Unlike the last project I worked on, it was immediately evident this one had been modeled by a team of Revitards operating at maybe 35% brain function.  Fortunately, having spent years unfucking Revitized garbage for my use, it wasn't too difficult to get them cleaned up.

That didn't mean they weren't chock full of just... fucking sad attempts at forcing Revit to vomit up something resembling floor plans (including importing linework for kitchen/bar plans - but not bothering to look at them closely enough to actually provide a coordinated set of plans.

Then on top of that, other discipline's engineers/designers had gotten their hands on it, meaning piles of overlapping, conflicting, and otherwise view-range challenged garbage strewn everywhere.  On the upside, rather than extract 'typical' plans, the equipment I needed was all on the overall plans.

As usual, it was extremely difficult to suss out which units were accessible - since it is apparently impossible to simply label them as such (although they did have symbols denoting which ones were hearing impaired - one of which was comically disappearing under a bed).

Also, as usual, the equipment shown in the guest units didn't make logical sense - meaning that no matter how much thought I put into my design, it will be extremely surprising if I don't end up revisiting the project at least once (minimum).

I'm going to second-guess at least one thing that would require considerable reworking if the AHJ rejects the current design (which I'm almost certain they will) by calculating a heavier load for some devices, then going back and lowering it to match what they show.

I've mentioned doing this before - when equally retarded fucksticks were simply leaving necessary equipment off.  The repetition necessary to recreate the same systems unit after unit (whether doing typical units - or overall as in this case) always shows cracks.

The irony being that Revit is supposed to make it easier/faster (lies/damned lies) but as always, I go unit to unit and floor to floor and find where instead of being able to simply copy and tweak, every single device is placed in every single unit, meaning every time is a chance to overlook something.

I'm seeing lights disappear beneath sink counters (because they are mounted at the wrong height), receptacles and other devices strewn everywhere as they attached to things other than the walls they should have been attached to.  Things floating in space, things stuck halfway in walls.

And that's before you get to the myriad minor (unnecessary, and almost certainly unintended) changes from unit to unit/floor to floor - that only become clear when a template is applied to them.  Again - every wall has to be drawn, every window inserted, every piece of millwork placed.

Many times, when dealing with architects, I was able to show them that their Reviteers were fucking this type of stuff up - and in almost every case, they would make them go back and fix it (but only after it was pointed out).

There were a few project managers (that were still stuck Reviting because they wanted their projects not to be complete suckholes) who knew how to use tools in Revit to keep things consistent, but that had more to do with their experience in architecture, rather than reliance on software.

They were definitely in the minority though, as the vast majority of Revit cheerleaders were obviously having to cut any number of corners to pretend like they were successfully turning out work on par with what their non-Revit predecessors had done.

You've probably heard the old saying 'to err is human, but to really fuck things up requires a computer'.  Well - burying something in shit and destroying any chance at ever digging your way out definitely requires Revit.

It also doesn't hurt if you never leave the office, and never have to see the result of your fucktarded 'designs' being implemented by people who have to figure out how to unfuck them as millwork, countertops, and entire sections of rooms have to be custom built and/or modified.

Anyone bidding a job would do well to find out if it was designed in Revit, and include a little extra in their bid for exactly these types of contingencies.  In years past, if you were doing multiple 'identical' units, you could simply figure out the first one, and reuse those calculations.

This made for considerably faster and more consistent work - but enter the Revitized building, and every trade is having to make countless adjustments as 'coordinated' plans turn out to be sad attempts by Reviteers at cramming everything into a model at the last second.

The people in the field are left with a dilemma - build as shown (i.e. - wrong), or correct, and risk causing problems that require them to go back and adjust to what was shown (at their own expense).  I know if I were doing it, every single fuckup would be written up as a change order.

Knowing where those fuckups stemmed from would be key - as would getting past the first layer of Revit apologists who are going to try to hide those fuckups from their superiors (after adamantly denying that the fuckups exist in the first place).

Fuck inconsistency.  Fuck the Revit lies - and fuck anyone selling those lies.

And if you don't like it - Fuck You.


Next Time: A Revit Fan Chimes In.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

How Low Can Your Standards Go?

So there I am - opening a set of drawings from an electrical engineer for a 5 story hotel.

I'm first struck by the sparseness of the sheets - especially considering that they've broken up the building into four quadrants (I was able to fit each floor onto 36"x48" sheets - although it is crammed on there).  The overall plans are only showing equipment in the corridors/common areas (oh, and they've got some of the common areas broken off into enlarged details - which they conveniently didn't provide CAD files of (fortunately I was able to locate a .pdf set).

Based on how shitty the drawings looked, I was pretty sure it had started off as a Revit file - confirmed by a quick glance at the clusterfuck of exported layers.  Whoever did the electrical design was obviously flying by the seat of their pants, slapping devices here and there, putting forth the absolute minimum effort to give a fuck as they almost certainly were having their rectum discombobulated by the Revit dick.  The fact an engineer signed off on them is just fucking sad.

Even with my formidable skills, It took quite a while to clean up the drawings (which I can't stress enough, were fucking atrocious) figure out what the fuck was going on, and actually get all of the equipment that I cared about onto one set of plans.  I will have six floor plan sheets (as opposed to their sixteen sheets - and they even had their lighting/power on the same sheets -and a typical plan for second through fourth floors) and not only will mine look fucking immaculate, they will also be 100% accurate.

When I went to put equipment from their typical units onto the plans, I was amused to find that out of eight typical plans - only five of them even had the necessary equipment shown.  In addition to this, a catch-all note was included to describe additional/alternate equipment for the accessible units (despite there already being separate plans for those accessible units). At first I thought they had the wrong keynote next to a device, but it turned out that what should've been keynote '10' was only showing '1'.

Also, thanks to one (or more) of the quarter-trillion view settings, there are a fuckton of doors missing from the plans.  Some just show openings, some show headers (some of which are missing doors, some of which are actually supposed to be openings), and one especially confusing one has a 6' sliding door.  Keep in mind, this isn't just nitpicking on my part - there is no clear path of egress on most of these plans.

They had no equipment in elevator shafts, insufficient equipment in elevator equipment rooms, and due to the parking garage that runs up through the middle of the building, they will most likely end up having to come back through and change all of the smoke detectors into carbon monoxide (or combo) detectors.  I'm going to be making a list to send to the guy who sold/quoted the job to determine if we fix these oversights/fuckups or if we just submit 'as-is' and let it get rejected.

If we do the latter, I will take the same approach as I did on the apartment building I did last year, and size everything for the additional equipment so I can just plug it in.  My co-worker just recently had a job where he knew that they were going to need a bunch of extra equipment, so he simply put the additional equipment/wiring/etc. on a separate layer - so when it came back rejected (as we knew it would), he just flipped a few layers on and off, and 'voila'.

Of course, then they ended up making additional changes that couldn't have been predicted (par for the course there).  Based on how little thought was put into slapping these drawings together, I have very little doubt that other things (like codes, local requirements, etc.) were also overlooked - meaning I will most likely end up back in these drawings again - possibly even redoing them almost from scratch as I have others in the past - thanks to nobody giving a fuck until (way) after the fact.

The funniest part is that, aside from anyone I grumble to about it, nobody will realize the amount of thought I have put into it (especially if all of that thought gets negated by a complete redesign).  I've got another recent project that was a renovation of a small building at a waste treatment plant.  The client told us exactly what they wanted to do, so we did it (well, at least I did after deciphering the nonsense that the guy who quoted it shat out).  Then at a meeting yesterday, they did a complete 180.

Fortunately our office manager was at both meetings (due to the guy who quoted it being an alcoholic with a fucked up back that keeps him home a lot of the time) - otherwise (as he even admitted), he wouldn't have believed that it was the client's doing, but misunderstanding on our part.  This was especially important, because he was in a position to then request additional money from the client, since it constituted a complete redesign (after the original one had already been completed AND submitted to the city for review).

That last part is the kicker, because while we could contact the city and tell them not to bother reviewing the first set, that could open a whole other can of worms.  Instead, we're going to let it go forward 'as-is', and then reissue - at which point, everyone's time/money will have been wasted (all due to a clueless client, who really should've known better).  Oh - and to pile irony on it, the work we are doing on the building itself is only a temporary fix to alleviate a much larger problem.

Within two years, that building most likely won't even be there anymore - and the vast majority of what we are doing is to allow personnel to remotely operate equipment in that building (and tie into the adjacent university so they can monitor trouble signals).  Given that the AHJ will have reviewed the first set (and will almost certainly reject it), it will look very much like the client (or our firm) is trying to get around their rejection (based on a building that doesn't come close to meeting code).

I really should've known when I issued the first set of drawings that something was wrong, because it all went smoothly and made logical sense - but that's the world we live in.  The only up side is that I didn't waste countless hours fighting Revit to generate a set of shitty looking drawings, only to find out that it was all for naught.  I'll be drawing a couple of diagrams/schematics, our people already know how to install the shit, and despite all of the attempts to prevent it - we'll actually turn a healthy profit.

Fuck the low standard that Revit has allowed people to drop to - and fuck anyone perpetuating the Revit myth.

And if you don't like it - Fuck You.


Next Time:Let Me Tell You Why Your Model Sucks