Alright Ladies and Gents,
So - after getting ACAD 2016 up and running, I fired up Revit 2016 and.... immediately went back to using Revit 2015 because, of course, in order to work in Revit 2016, the project I'm working on would have to be updated to Revit 2016 format.
I'm working in an Architectural model, and *almost* decided to just let the thing upgrade (it may end up getting upgraded eventually anyway) when I noticed one nice 'feature' that should have been around since DAY FUCKING ONE and that is the ability to hit 'cancel' on the upgrade rather than having to either let it sit there and go through the upgrade (then 'temporarily upgrade' any linked files) before closing it out and re-opening in the older version - or ctrl+alt+del and kill the fucking program (although I have to admit, I do love killing Revit - and it dies quickly).
I've complained before about not having a way to know what version a Revit file is in before you open it (I've currently got three versions on my machine, and god forbid I have to open a file older than that). I had done some rudimentary searches, but the best ideas I saw were to include the release version in the file name (which is great, until someone fails to change it when they upgrade it, and/or fails to bother to tell anyone that has the file linked in - I've seen folders full of Revit files, and the only way you know which is the correct one is by the date that it was last saved).
I decided to do a quick search today - and found where someone had developed a (free/donation) 'File Version Reporter' program that would not only tell you the last saved version of a file, but would also give you the option to click 'No' before automatically starting to upgrade the file (holy fucking shit - what a concept!!!):
https://boostyourbim.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/free-revit-file-version-tool-download-it-today/
More power to them - but this is yet another example of a third-party having to get involved in order to solve what should be simple, basic, goddamned intuitive fucking shit and allowing Autodesk to continue to shart out half-ass garbage. I also ran across yet another innocent attempt at asking about reverting a Revit file back to an older version that quickly degraded into some faggot named 'Ryan713' accusing the asker of 'wanting Revit to be like Autocad':
http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/revit-architecture/2015-revit-files-convert-to-2014/td-p/5324183
Granted, it was after the guy who asked about it accused Autodesk of running a monopoly (which isn't entirely off base), but 'Ryan713' deserves to be beaten so badly after making that comment that they would have to identify him by digging tooth fragments out of my fists, using a 3d scanner and software to recreate them, and then compare them to dental records (only to find out that it was justifiable homicide after finding out that he had made that comment).
And none of this even addresses what happens (and did happen a few months ago here) if some idiot decides to upgrade a file without bothering to ask anyone, and it turns out that the client (who is also doing work in Revit - although this is not a typical client) hasn't upgraded yet - and maybe doesn't have a plan to upgrade yet. OR what happens if someone upgrades a file, and the new release of Revit decides to take a shit.
Obviously keeping backups of stuff could prevent major problems from occurring because of this - but what generally happens is that work gets done before the mistake is found, so simply pulling up an older file from a backup or local file isn't necessarily going to magically fix it. It would also help if everybody involved with using Revit actually gave a shit and communicated with other people, but being oblivious to what is happening beyond the tip of your own nose seems to be the hallmark of Reviteering.
Anyway - I do have a project coming up in 2016 Revit that will allow me to give it a full rundown (it's a 'reuse' of an older project - which is 'exactly like the older project', except for the part where it's in a different location, oriented differently on the site, has gotten longer on one side, and had a dozen other floor plan changes). This is a common trope in the design industry - presenting a project to the design team as 'just like this other one.... (wait for it).... (keep waiting).... Except... (BANG)'.
Fortunately I didn't waste my time doing the last one in Revit - only putting the lights into the ceiling to shut them the fuck up and attempt to coordinate with the HVAC design (always entertaining to watch them proceed to ignore the shit out of everything I put into the model - and that's if their plenums and whatnot even line up with the fucking ceiling). The model they dug up and revived still had my lights in it - but of course, they are strewn to the fucking wind because the current project and the old project are the 'same' only in that they are both buildings, and have walls/ceilings/etc.
This particular client (in addition to being deluded about what constitutes a 'reuse' of a project) is also certifiably insane - and that brings us to the topic I promised from last time. Incompetent/indecisive clients aren't Revit's fault - but
that doesn't prevent Revit from getting in the way of getting their projects
out the door. I've watched people spend inordinate amounts of time getting every fucking detail in a model 'just so', fighting issue after issue, doing the 'workaround dickaround' and then drag everybody else into their fucking hell - just to have some idiot client come crashing through their project like a bull in a china shop.
If I'm doing schematics - then it might be a pain in the ass, but if I'm trying to maintain a Revit model - it's totally fucked. Obviously we should get paid more if the client is making changes, but nobody (the client or the people running the show) have any concept of how much actual time and effort goes into chasing the clients ever-shifting dreams and whims - made even more difficult to quantify when you consider how many late nights and weekends Reviteers willingly burn through for free (don't even try to deny it you Revit Fucks).
Nobody wants to nickel and dime a client for 'minor changes', but clients figure out pretty quick that all they have to do is convince whoever they are dealing with that their changes are 'minor' and ignore anyone attempting to point out the reality of how difficult making those changes will be, and how it will 'trickle-down' onto the heads of everyone else trying to play catchup. This is made even worse by people buying into claims that 'Revit makes doing this or changing that so much faster and easier' and now you've got people so disconnected from the design process that they think Revit is doing all of the heavy lifting, leaving clients free to make whatever changes they want, at whatever time they want, regardless of the schedule, because 'it's easy now'.
I'm working on several projects right now (I'm always working on several projects), one of which has a large amount of important information that has not been forthcoming. We've asked for this information since day one (weeks, if not months ago), and have been blown off so many times, we could have built a wind turbine and powered our office for a year from the wind energy. We started out with one equipment layout and cut-sheets (that were wrong - not to mention incomplete), and when we pointed this out - we were told to refer to a 'prototype'. After pointing out that the prototype didn't bear any resemblance to what we were being told to do this time around (which they already knew), we were begrudgingly given an updated layout/list/cut-sheets (again, incomplete) along with drawings for another aspect of the project that upon review turned out to be (you guessed it) wrong.
We continued to press for this information - and it's being promised 'tomorrow' (I'll believe that - only when and if I get it, review it, and find out if it's not just another round of hand waving to make us go away). In the meantime we've had to make a number of guesses, all of which open us up to liability and/or actionable positions. We've attempted to be the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, but instead we've just been the squeaky wheel that gets told to shut the fuck up. The client doesn't have any concept of this - as they've never done a project this elaborate.
They can't comprehend that what we are trying to do is in their best interest so that the building can be built, and when they roll their equipment in, it will be ready to connect to electrical (and gas, and water, and drains, and exhaust, etc. etc.) rather than resulting in us receiving change order after change order and thrown under the bus as if we were some kind of fucking idiots. They'll probably try to do it anyway once they keep making changes after we issue our drawings - requiring us to waste additional time and effort to defend our design in a professional manner (before most likely consenting to make the necessary changes for free in order to make them go away and/or guarantee that we will pick up more shitty projects from them in the future).
I haven't even heard a schedule for this project (we're long past the original one - so they've basically admitted they haven't given us the information we need to finish it, but that won't stop them from pretending that we're the hold-up), but I'm sure it will be 'OH MY FUCKING GOD HAIR ON FIRE ASAP!!!!', and the fact that I don't have to worry about Revit on top of that is the only reason I don't drag them out behind the woodshed and put them out of their (and our) misery with a bullet to the back of the head.
Since they tend to develop their own ACAD drawings to do their layouts (which are either out of date when compared to our Revit plans - or never actually resembled them in the first place) means that just linking them into the Revit model results in a complete nonsense (which is still a problem for when they go to build it - since walls and equipment can't typicaly occupy the same space), but for my purposes, I can get it in there, make adjustments as necessary and get my drawings out SOMETIME THIS FUCKING DECADE.
I may have mentioned it before, but I'll never forget the time someone sent me an equipment layout to coordinate my lights with (why didn't you coordinate your lights with this equipment layout that we failed to send you and/or sent you an outdated version of?!?!) I attempted to insert it into the Revit model (because for some fucking reason I was wasting my time in Revit). It looked like a clusterfuck - but because everything in Revit is goddamned unintelligible, I couldn't have even told you why.
The ACAD file was actually in metric - and it was automatically converting it to standard when it inserted (which is pretty cool) but there were walls not lining up, and a number of other problems that weren't readily apparent *until* I exported the fucking model into ACAD, overlaid the equipment plan (after carefully manually scaling it) and found that the reason it looked so cocked up in Revit was that they had (yes) developed their own floor plan to do the layout.
After pointing this out to the project manager (who pointed it out to the client) they both immediately came to the conclusion that I had (obviously) scaled it incorrectly (haha - look at this dumbass who can't even scale correctly!) That's when I pointed out several places in our Revit model (or more accurately in the ACAD file that I had exported from Revit) where columns were inside walls, and on the equipment plan the columns were next to the wall - which no amount of scaling (correct or otherwise) could cause to happen.
Then they told us 'well - go ahead and just do it close enough' but fortunately this is where the project manager stepped in and pointed out that they had been nitpicking detail after detail after detail in our design, and that we were reticent to 'do it close enough'. They relented, updated their equipment layout with our Revit floor plan, and then I completed the project (in ACAD because FUCK REVIT).
Similar kinds of things show up on nearly every project - almost to the point where it feels like 'Groundhog Day', or more accurately - it feels like every project we do is the first one we've ever done, because the same mistakes and assumptions, get made, and the same failed processes (most of the time centering around Revit) get implemented, and nobody fucking learns anything from it. Attempting to explain it to someone is almost immediately exasperating (to the point that I've pretty much given up on it), because it is such a complex and multifaceted problem that they don't have any chance of understanding unless they are dropped into the middle of it.
I've watched other people overcome gigantic hurdles in Revit in order to get projects completed - and that's EXACTLY the problem. If they weren't overcoming Revit hurdles - they could do their fucking jobs, and it would benefit everyone. Instead, Revit has become their job - and it shows.
FUCK Revit, FUCK Autodesk, and FUCK every single person willingly using or otherwise propagating this inbred clusterfuck.
And if you don't like it (and/or this is TL/DR) FUCK YOU!!!
-The Motherfucking Skullfucker
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
2016 ACAD is BACK BABY!!!
Greetings from the skull that just keeps on fucking!!!
After the sad, phoned-in joke that was 2015 ACAD, it would appear as if somebody at Autodesk might've actually listened to the people using their software (do you hear that you Revitfuckers?) and either dialed back or fixed some of the shit they broke. Amusingly, I never actually used 2105 after setting it up and finding basic functionality broken: ACAD 2015 Rundown Rectacular
I went back to using 2014 in the interim - and even after installing 2016, I was pretty sure that I would be continuing down that path until they discontinued it. Much to my surprise it worked almost perfectly - right out of the box, although it seemed to be having the same problem 2015 had when it came to lagging for 1-2 minutes when attempting to pull a license.
Fortunately this cleared up after a few more times of opening, and seems to be working correctly (I don't know if other people complained to our IT department, or if it did it by itself, hopefully it's all set now). The first thing I checked was to see if it had the same problem 2015 had with snap settings (more detail in the article linked above) where it would attempt to snap to the grid any time you turned off object snap (even with grid snap turned off).
I had figured out that simply leaving object snap on and unchecking all of the options (end/mid/etc.) would make it work 'correctly' - but then if I wanted to use object snaps I would have to go and manually check and uncheck them instead of just toggling it on and off. Even with this workaround, there was still the second problem of the snap selection box/circle/triangle/x (depending on the option(s) checked) being so small as to almost be invisible.
Someone (maybe even Autodesk) may have eventually provided a solution or setting adjustment to fix one or both of these problems - but the first experience I have with any piece of software (or anything really) goes a long way towards forming my opinion of it (one of the main reasons I still consider Revit to be a quarter-ass piece of shit). If it's going to get in my way, prevent me from being able to concentrate, or otherwise hinder my work - it can take a flying fuck at a razor blade lined rolling doughnut covered with gasoline.
I can also guarantee that if I was finding shit like this within the first few minutes of using it, that there were probably other problems too - but it was already a deal-breaker, and I wasn't going to waste any more of my time and mental effort when I had projects to declusterfuckize (thanks to extensive amounts of Revit faggotry) and get out the door. Fucking with my ability to do my job by randomly breaking shit is grounds for a knee-capping.
Anyway - after verifying that this shit was working in 2016, and after disabling the viewcube, ribbon, the 'start' b.s., drawing tabs, seting the background to FUCKING BLACK YOU FUCKING IDIOTS, disabling the search/infocenter (I had sort of given up on this in the past, but a few seconds of googling and I had some guy's LISP routine to make it fuck directly off), and getting rid of most of the extra junk at the bottom, I had what is probably the single cleanest (and functional) ACAD setup I've ever had.
There seems to be a little trouble with the bar at the bottom - even after unchecking 'Display Configuration', 'Global Cut Plane Icon', 'Cut Plane Text', 'Replace Z Value', and 'Elevation', they keep wanting to come back on when restarted. That's a minor annoyance (and they can always be unchecked again) but there is also no option to turn off the icons for 'surface hatch toggle', 'layer key overrides', or the 'Autodesk Trusted DWG' icon (or the 'customization' icon for that matter - this should all be located in 'options' or somewhere else).
As people have time to look at it (and as I have time to search) 'fixes' for these minor items might present themselves - but there's going to be a bar at the bottom of the screen anyway (more on that in a second), so it's not necessarily taking up work space (it does like to jump up an extra line from time to time though - but it seems to go away when I uncheck the extra junk).
So I get my QAT set up (while looking at my 2014 setup), get rid of the stupid green and red X/Y lines, turn off the coordinates at the cursor (and tooltips), turn off polar tracking, extend the crosshairs to their limits, set up arrow to previous command, set right click to repeat previous command (and enter when in command), and I'm ready to rock 'n roll.
Then I notice that it has model/paper space (or 'work') tabs at the bottom of the screen - this is fucking awesome, because even in 2014 it was relegated to a single icon at the bottom that you had to click on, then select the paper space view you wanted. In 2015, even this icon went away, and I was forced to put one on my QAT.
Now, (rant warning) even though I understand the reasoning behind it - I don't fucking use fucking paper space. I consider it to be a huge aggravation and an impediment to my ability to get my shit done - but I do occasionally have to open drawings that were done in paper space from time to time, and being able to easily navigate through their sheets is essential.
When I'm working on a project, I want all my shit in one fucking place so I can fucking see it, wrap my fucking head around it, and manipulate it. People like to think that paper space (or Revit) helps to keep things organized - when all it does is spread shit out all over the place and leave people (and not just me) flailing. When I can do a birds-eye view of my entire project, as if the sheets were laid out on a huge desk, and zoom to any point on it at any time (or up to eight at once with VPorts), that is a fucking system for keeping things straight. (/rant off)
There is one new feature in 2106 ACAD (that I turned off because it was the default - but might actually end up getting some use), and that is the 'Lasso'. It's a little strange the first time you see it (especially if you aren't expecting it), but it basically allows you to have more flexibility when selecting objects/text than just 'rectangle'. You can easily avoid items that you don't want to select, rather than having to grab everything in the area and de-select items.
Not a game changer by any means - but it's good to see that people are still attempting to innovate and improve ACAD in these days of Revit-dicking. Hell - with as good of a job as they did with this release, they could probably make ACAD into BIM software (without the asinine interface and arbitrary limitations inherent to Revit), which is what they should have fucking done in the first place.
Instead, they decided to go the dickless motherfucker route - and so now, they can all go fuck themselves. And if you don't like it - you can go fuck yourself right along with them (because whether or not you are aware of it, or are willing to admit it - you are already both fucking yourself, and already fucked).
Next time - 'Revit Is Incompatible With Indecisive Clients'.
-SKFK 2016
*Edit - only one other minor issue, apparently in 2015 some fucking genius decided to add a 'feature' called 'rubberband lines' that shows a dashed line from your basepoint when moving/copying/etc. extending to wherever you drag the object, neglected to give us a variable to disable it, and this has carried over into 2016. Hopefully this will get fixed ASAP, but I can ignore it for now. If anyone runs across a fix, let me know!
*Edit #2 - I just ran across another annoyance, but it had a 5 second fix - setting 'selection preview' to 0 prevents it from highlighting shit when you hover over it.
After the sad, phoned-in joke that was 2015 ACAD, it would appear as if somebody at Autodesk might've actually listened to the people using their software (do you hear that you Revitfuckers?) and either dialed back or fixed some of the shit they broke. Amusingly, I never actually used 2105 after setting it up and finding basic functionality broken: ACAD 2015 Rundown Rectacular
I went back to using 2014 in the interim - and even after installing 2016, I was pretty sure that I would be continuing down that path until they discontinued it. Much to my surprise it worked almost perfectly - right out of the box, although it seemed to be having the same problem 2015 had when it came to lagging for 1-2 minutes when attempting to pull a license.
Fortunately this cleared up after a few more times of opening, and seems to be working correctly (I don't know if other people complained to our IT department, or if it did it by itself, hopefully it's all set now). The first thing I checked was to see if it had the same problem 2015 had with snap settings (more detail in the article linked above) where it would attempt to snap to the grid any time you turned off object snap (even with grid snap turned off).
I had figured out that simply leaving object snap on and unchecking all of the options (end/mid/etc.) would make it work 'correctly' - but then if I wanted to use object snaps I would have to go and manually check and uncheck them instead of just toggling it on and off. Even with this workaround, there was still the second problem of the snap selection box/circle/triangle/x (depending on the option(s) checked) being so small as to almost be invisible.
Someone (maybe even Autodesk) may have eventually provided a solution or setting adjustment to fix one or both of these problems - but the first experience I have with any piece of software (or anything really) goes a long way towards forming my opinion of it (one of the main reasons I still consider Revit to be a quarter-ass piece of shit). If it's going to get in my way, prevent me from being able to concentrate, or otherwise hinder my work - it can take a flying fuck at a razor blade lined rolling doughnut covered with gasoline.
I can also guarantee that if I was finding shit like this within the first few minutes of using it, that there were probably other problems too - but it was already a deal-breaker, and I wasn't going to waste any more of my time and mental effort when I had projects to declusterfuckize (thanks to extensive amounts of Revit faggotry) and get out the door. Fucking with my ability to do my job by randomly breaking shit is grounds for a knee-capping.
Anyway - after verifying that this shit was working in 2016, and after disabling the viewcube, ribbon, the 'start' b.s., drawing tabs, seting the background to FUCKING BLACK YOU FUCKING IDIOTS, disabling the search/infocenter (I had sort of given up on this in the past, but a few seconds of googling and I had some guy's LISP routine to make it fuck directly off), and getting rid of most of the extra junk at the bottom, I had what is probably the single cleanest (and functional) ACAD setup I've ever had.
There seems to be a little trouble with the bar at the bottom - even after unchecking 'Display Configuration', 'Global Cut Plane Icon', 'Cut Plane Text', 'Replace Z Value', and 'Elevation', they keep wanting to come back on when restarted. That's a minor annoyance (and they can always be unchecked again) but there is also no option to turn off the icons for 'surface hatch toggle', 'layer key overrides', or the 'Autodesk Trusted DWG' icon (or the 'customization' icon for that matter - this should all be located in 'options' or somewhere else).
As people have time to look at it (and as I have time to search) 'fixes' for these minor items might present themselves - but there's going to be a bar at the bottom of the screen anyway (more on that in a second), so it's not necessarily taking up work space (it does like to jump up an extra line from time to time though - but it seems to go away when I uncheck the extra junk).
So I get my QAT set up (while looking at my 2014 setup), get rid of the stupid green and red X/Y lines, turn off the coordinates at the cursor (and tooltips), turn off polar tracking, extend the crosshairs to their limits, set up arrow to previous command, set right click to repeat previous command (and enter when in command), and I'm ready to rock 'n roll.
Then I notice that it has model/paper space (or 'work') tabs at the bottom of the screen - this is fucking awesome, because even in 2014 it was relegated to a single icon at the bottom that you had to click on, then select the paper space view you wanted. In 2015, even this icon went away, and I was forced to put one on my QAT.
Now, (rant warning) even though I understand the reasoning behind it - I don't fucking use fucking paper space. I consider it to be a huge aggravation and an impediment to my ability to get my shit done - but I do occasionally have to open drawings that were done in paper space from time to time, and being able to easily navigate through their sheets is essential.
When I'm working on a project, I want all my shit in one fucking place so I can fucking see it, wrap my fucking head around it, and manipulate it. People like to think that paper space (or Revit) helps to keep things organized - when all it does is spread shit out all over the place and leave people (and not just me) flailing. When I can do a birds-eye view of my entire project, as if the sheets were laid out on a huge desk, and zoom to any point on it at any time (or up to eight at once with VPorts), that is a fucking system for keeping things straight. (/rant off)
There is one new feature in 2106 ACAD (that I turned off because it was the default - but might actually end up getting some use), and that is the 'Lasso'. It's a little strange the first time you see it (especially if you aren't expecting it), but it basically allows you to have more flexibility when selecting objects/text than just 'rectangle'. You can easily avoid items that you don't want to select, rather than having to grab everything in the area and de-select items.
Not a game changer by any means - but it's good to see that people are still attempting to innovate and improve ACAD in these days of Revit-dicking. Hell - with as good of a job as they did with this release, they could probably make ACAD into BIM software (without the asinine interface and arbitrary limitations inherent to Revit), which is what they should have fucking done in the first place.
Instead, they decided to go the dickless motherfucker route - and so now, they can all go fuck themselves. And if you don't like it - you can go fuck yourself right along with them (because whether or not you are aware of it, or are willing to admit it - you are already both fucking yourself, and already fucked).
Next time - 'Revit Is Incompatible With Indecisive Clients'.
-SKFK 2016
*Edit - only one other minor issue, apparently in 2015 some fucking genius decided to add a 'feature' called 'rubberband lines' that shows a dashed line from your basepoint when moving/copying/etc. extending to wherever you drag the object, neglected to give us a variable to disable it, and this has carried over into 2016. Hopefully this will get fixed ASAP, but I can ignore it for now. If anyone runs across a fix, let me know!
*Edit #2 - I just ran across another annoyance, but it had a 5 second fix - setting 'selection preview' to 0 prevents it from highlighting shit when you hover over it.
Friday, May 8, 2015
Going Through The Workout
One of the biggest oversights I've seen most firms attempting to shove their employees faces into the Revit shitpile have is that even though this software bills itself as being 'teh awesome sauce' for collaboration - how you actually get to the point where you can collaborate is pretty much up to the individual firm to figure out.
Now that's all fine and good - since everybody is going to do things their own way, but that's all fucked and shit, since everybody is going to do things their own way. I've railed about office standards going out the window with the advent of Revit - and despite some well-meaning (but more or less incompetent) attempts at reigning people back in - an 'every man for himself' attitude towards Revit standards has prevailed.
I don't think I've seen two Revit models that were set up the same way in the entire time it's been in use. Every single one is started by someone flying by the seat of their pants, often attempting to reproduce a 2D set of CAD concept drawings that a client provided. (This is where you actually see part of the Reviteer argument of the benefit of 3D drawings in reference to helping the customer understand, because a lot of the people they have designing/drafting can't actually read construction documents either).
Now, the 3D model generally doesn't go anywhere, so with only a few exceptions, most of the views on the final Construction Documents will be 2D plans and elevations (and I can see the benefit in having those be coordinated), but if you were to put the average Reviteer in front of those drawings, they wouldn't be able to reverse engineer (or reverse architect as the case may be) them into a 3D model to save their lives.
Their argument starts to fall apart though , because if you are doing design, (or even drafting/modeling) - you need to have at least a basic understanding of what it is you are doing. I've watched a number of Revitbots whip up some seriously fancy Revit shit, 'ooh' and 'aah' the client, suck their own dicks for being so awesome - and then get kicked square in the balls when it comes time to generate a set of CD's because there isn't a single fucking thing in the entire goddamned model that is correct.
So, now you have barely competent people responsible for setting up models that are intended to be used and/or linked by multiple disciplines - and while concepts like 'worksharing', 'worksets', etc. get thrown around a lot as buzzwords, it's entertaining to listen to people (both in-office and online) try to accurately define them. They will talk about 'coordination' like it's something that didn't exist prior to the Revitlution. In their defense (and at the risk of sounding like an old fogey), a lot of them were still in school when we were already successfully designing and constructing buildings.
As I always say - if they want to stick their own dicks in the pencil sharpener, go for it. The second your incompetence starts to impinge on my ability to do my job though, it's fucking on. You hear a lot of Revit Apologists and Sanctimonious Motherfuckers (c) making a semi-valid point about people who dislike Revit just not having taken the time to learn how to use it.
It also doesn't help that most of the posts you read where someone is actually *IS* trying to learn how to use it (usually while trying to get around something that should be simple, but has them at a fucking standstill) get derided by the 'Revit Elite' unless they are carefully worded and avoid anything that could be construed as 'ACAD Thinking'. I need to take more time compiling posts that I read where someone asks a question - maybe even gets a fairly well-intentioned answer that is wrong and/or doesn't solve (or even address) the problem, and that's where the thread dies.
People have an almost compulsive tendency to want to answer questions - even if they don't have a frame of reference (or any idea what they are talking about), and when called out, it's easy for a Revitbot to just start vomiting all over the discussion by regarding every problem related to Revit as 'user error' or 'user complacence'. It fails, however, to take into account that Revit hasn't made the first attempt at addressing the 'flux' aspect of projects.
When crunch time comes (and it always comes), there are going to be several disciplines - all attempting to get their work done at the same time. This is about the same time someone with actual experience notices that they've been being bullshitted by the Reviteers (you would think they would learn eventually - but Revit has really sucked all logic out of the atmosphere in many offices). Now, to get their own drawings in order, they have to pull out all the stops - and a lot of the work you've done up to that point ends up going in the trash bin (if it's not the first time you've actually got a model you can do anything with).
Minor oversights, mistakes, or attempts to fake stuff in as a last ditch effort on the part of other disciplines can keep you from being able to get things to attach to a model (linked or otherwise), or cause them to do unexpected things as the 'bull in the a china shop' process of forging a usable set of CD's from a pointlessly elaborate (while simultaneously helplessly incorrect) model. Since you have no idea what is being done in a model at any given time (linked or otherwise) you can be putting forth your best effort, and someone else can be countering that effort.
If it's linked, you have to keep reloading the model and then play 'Where's Waldo' with what they've fucked up (basically making it the same as exporting it to ACAD - except that in CAD the fuckups will be much easier to see - and fix). If you are all in one model it's better - but not by much. People acknowledge this from time to time - and will make overtures towards setting up the workflow to where the Architectural model is to a certain percentage of completeness before Systems disciplines get involved - but they are still always making their final tweaks even as due dates loom.
Combine this with the fact that I'm often the one catching other people's fuck-ups because I'm the only one actually paying attention to detail - and it's usually only in the last few minutes before a job finally gets drug out the door that they are fixing problems (that I've pointed out repeatedly) like missing or incorrect project information on their titles, spelling errors, messed up floor plans, illegible details, etc. - and you've just lost all the benefit of Reviting in the first place.
Even if it were to mostly come down to sloppy practices on the part of those using Revit, it is still Revit that allows these practices to take place. There were people who didn't give a shit before Revit, and they could be counted on to waste time, money, effort, etc. - but now they can hide behind a model that is too elaborate for anyone to notice the cracks in the facade until they take a closer look. And once those cracks start to show, it's a motherfucker to try to patch them up, and everyone else gets caught in the lurch.
Fuck Revit. Fuck Autodesk. Fuck Reviteers/Revitbots/Revitshits/Revit Apologists. Fuck Sanctimonious Motherfuckers (c), and if you don't like it - FUCK YOU.
-SkulkingFucker
Now that's all fine and good - since everybody is going to do things their own way, but that's all fucked and shit, since everybody is going to do things their own way. I've railed about office standards going out the window with the advent of Revit - and despite some well-meaning (but more or less incompetent) attempts at reigning people back in - an 'every man for himself' attitude towards Revit standards has prevailed.
I don't think I've seen two Revit models that were set up the same way in the entire time it's been in use. Every single one is started by someone flying by the seat of their pants, often attempting to reproduce a 2D set of CAD concept drawings that a client provided. (This is where you actually see part of the Reviteer argument of the benefit of 3D drawings in reference to helping the customer understand, because a lot of the people they have designing/drafting can't actually read construction documents either).
Now, the 3D model generally doesn't go anywhere, so with only a few exceptions, most of the views on the final Construction Documents will be 2D plans and elevations (and I can see the benefit in having those be coordinated), but if you were to put the average Reviteer in front of those drawings, they wouldn't be able to reverse engineer (or reverse architect as the case may be) them into a 3D model to save their lives.
Their argument starts to fall apart though , because if you are doing design, (or even drafting/modeling) - you need to have at least a basic understanding of what it is you are doing. I've watched a number of Revitbots whip up some seriously fancy Revit shit, 'ooh' and 'aah' the client, suck their own dicks for being so awesome - and then get kicked square in the balls when it comes time to generate a set of CD's because there isn't a single fucking thing in the entire goddamned model that is correct.
So, now you have barely competent people responsible for setting up models that are intended to be used and/or linked by multiple disciplines - and while concepts like 'worksharing', 'worksets', etc. get thrown around a lot as buzzwords, it's entertaining to listen to people (both in-office and online) try to accurately define them. They will talk about 'coordination' like it's something that didn't exist prior to the Revitlution. In their defense (and at the risk of sounding like an old fogey), a lot of them were still in school when we were already successfully designing and constructing buildings.
As I always say - if they want to stick their own dicks in the pencil sharpener, go for it. The second your incompetence starts to impinge on my ability to do my job though, it's fucking on. You hear a lot of Revit Apologists and Sanctimonious Motherfuckers (c) making a semi-valid point about people who dislike Revit just not having taken the time to learn how to use it.
It also doesn't help that most of the posts you read where someone is actually *IS* trying to learn how to use it (usually while trying to get around something that should be simple, but has them at a fucking standstill) get derided by the 'Revit Elite' unless they are carefully worded and avoid anything that could be construed as 'ACAD Thinking'. I need to take more time compiling posts that I read where someone asks a question - maybe even gets a fairly well-intentioned answer that is wrong and/or doesn't solve (or even address) the problem, and that's where the thread dies.
People have an almost compulsive tendency to want to answer questions - even if they don't have a frame of reference (or any idea what they are talking about), and when called out, it's easy for a Revitbot to just start vomiting all over the discussion by regarding every problem related to Revit as 'user error' or 'user complacence'. It fails, however, to take into account that Revit hasn't made the first attempt at addressing the 'flux' aspect of projects.
When crunch time comes (and it always comes), there are going to be several disciplines - all attempting to get their work done at the same time. This is about the same time someone with actual experience notices that they've been being bullshitted by the Reviteers (you would think they would learn eventually - but Revit has really sucked all logic out of the atmosphere in many offices). Now, to get their own drawings in order, they have to pull out all the stops - and a lot of the work you've done up to that point ends up going in the trash bin (if it's not the first time you've actually got a model you can do anything with).
Minor oversights, mistakes, or attempts to fake stuff in as a last ditch effort on the part of other disciplines can keep you from being able to get things to attach to a model (linked or otherwise), or cause them to do unexpected things as the 'bull in the a china shop' process of forging a usable set of CD's from a pointlessly elaborate (while simultaneously helplessly incorrect) model. Since you have no idea what is being done in a model at any given time (linked or otherwise) you can be putting forth your best effort, and someone else can be countering that effort.
If it's linked, you have to keep reloading the model and then play 'Where's Waldo' with what they've fucked up (basically making it the same as exporting it to ACAD - except that in CAD the fuckups will be much easier to see - and fix). If you are all in one model it's better - but not by much. People acknowledge this from time to time - and will make overtures towards setting up the workflow to where the Architectural model is to a certain percentage of completeness before Systems disciplines get involved - but they are still always making their final tweaks even as due dates loom.
Combine this with the fact that I'm often the one catching other people's fuck-ups because I'm the only one actually paying attention to detail - and it's usually only in the last few minutes before a job finally gets drug out the door that they are fixing problems (that I've pointed out repeatedly) like missing or incorrect project information on their titles, spelling errors, messed up floor plans, illegible details, etc. - and you've just lost all the benefit of Reviting in the first place.
Even if it were to mostly come down to sloppy practices on the part of those using Revit, it is still Revit that allows these practices to take place. There were people who didn't give a shit before Revit, and they could be counted on to waste time, money, effort, etc. - but now they can hide behind a model that is too elaborate for anyone to notice the cracks in the facade until they take a closer look. And once those cracks start to show, it's a motherfucker to try to patch them up, and everyone else gets caught in the lurch.
Fuck Revit. Fuck Autodesk. Fuck Reviteers/Revitbots/Revitshits/Revit Apologists. Fuck Sanctimonious Motherfuckers (c), and if you don't like it - FUCK YOU.
-SkulkingFucker
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Lies, Damned Lies, and Revit
This is one of the most egregious examples of Revit Apologetics I have ever had the displeasure of reading:
https://www.augi.com/library/real-life-perspective-transitioning-from-autocad-to-revit
Now - this is in 2015, and 'Michael Hopple', a Structural Designer and 'BIM Manager' is (in theory) trying to figure out how to convince the 33% of 'holdouts' to kneel down and suck the almighty Revit cock (note: that 33% figure is probably a bit low, because he probably doesn't realize how many 'Revit' shops are still doing a lot of their work in ACAD in order to get it done and out the door).
It reads like a motherfucking cult manifesto - and while it centers around the Structural portion of Revit (which is far more advanced than the Electrical portion), it does a bang-up job of dismissing a list of valid concerns (that he listed), while ignoring a plethora of basic functionality and user-interface failures.
Of course, it ignores the fact that Revit didn't fucking invent '3D' (or BIM for that matter). Then goes on to dismiss the back-breaking cost of the software, hardware, training, etc. (not his money) and extolls the virtues of having a model that his customer can understand.
His statement: "It is difficult not to spend an abundance of time rotating the model in all directions just to explore the 3D structural model" says a lot more than anything I could ever say. That's what you will generally see the people doing instead of getting the Revit model to the point that other disciplines can actually work on it.
He quotes another Structural Revitbot 'Cat Conlin' as saying: "One of the underappreciated features of Revit is the Project Browser" which sounds like they are reading off of a script written by some fucktard at Autodesk - speaking of which, this entire goddamned post milks so much jizz out of the Autodick, it's amazing they haven't imploded from the force of the suction.
By the time he gets to the 'tablet computers replacing paper drawing sets at the construction site' trope, '3d printer software linked to Revit models' (to do what, build the fucking building for you?) and (oh my fucking god) 'virtual reality headsets'... it's like he's totally lost touch with reality.
I actually made contact with the 'Revit Holdout' that he quotes in this article to make sure he was aware that he and his firm were being advertised on AUGI as 'Non-Revit', and he claimed that they are 'Revit capable' however they did not use it for their internal design work for the various assemblies that they manufacture.
It was disturbing (but sadly, not surprising) that he wasn't aware of how damaging this could be to both he and his firms reputation, what with the end-run Autodesk has been doing around the design community to get BIM required as part of various projects. If they had a competitor who claimed 'All Revit All The Time' it's entirely possible that they could lose out on a major project (oh well, their loss).
At any rate, listening to people argue for their favorite solutions is usually sure to leave you smelling a whiff of the ass they are kissing - but Mr. Hopple has solved the problem by plugging the Autodesk bunghole with his entire head and part of his upper body.
I really do wish him, and all of the Reviteers out there nothing but success in the future - may their mouths not split open from the plentiful cock wedged therein.
-Skullfuckit
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Revit 2016 Is Set To Suck Dicks
Yep - it's nearly that time again.
Time to upgrade all of your current projects (and any that you have to dig out of the hold-bin) to yet another shitty version of the most useless fucking software to ever infect your fucking computer/firm.
I was impressed to see something that I was literally just bitching about make it's way into Revit 2016 - which is to make the default insertion of a linked model 'Origin to Origin'! Good fucking job guys!!! Procede to suck your own dicks in celebration of changing a setting that should have already been the default. It apparently finally got so many requests/complaints that you deemed it worthy of changing. (It will even let you change it to something else and then make that the new default - hell boys, suck 'em twice!!!)
Now if the export to ACAD would only allow you to have the 'Export views on sheets and links as external references' box unchecked as a default - since about the only fucking thing I use Revit for is to get the fuck out of Revit.
Okay - lets run down the short list of updates relevant to the Electrical discipline from the website 'whatrevitwants' (answer: to rape your fucking eyesockets) who apparently got it from 'Revit Sundial' (whatever the fuck that is - and don't even get me started on 'Revit Skyscraper'):
Damn - that's pretty short (and meaningless), they are barely trying to disguise their contempt for the people they are fucking over on a daily basis. If that list was any shorter, or more useless - it would be Arnost Lobel's dick.
Who the fuck is setting these people's priorities?!!?
Can they not fucking read any of the vast number of wishlists or the countless posts in forums where people who have a goddamned job to do are begging and pleading for basic functionality and some semblance of user-friendliness?
I have to admit, I used to hold out hope that *eventually* something would have to break - that Autodesk would finally snap the fuck out of it and start playing catch-up, but I have to tell you folks, it ain't fucking happening.
The problem isn't something that can be fixed at this point - because if it were, it would cease to be Revit. It has defined itself by it's own inability to be 'fixed', and a steadfast refusal on the part of it's end users to demand satisfaction.
It has coincided with an across-the-board unwillingness for people to demand that standards be met in all aspects of the modern world. They have been carefully trained by corporations to be willing to pay more, accept less, shut their mouths, and suck it up.
This is especially evident in the way that planned obsolescence has been allowed to run rampant - I remember someone mentioning this concept to me years ago, but over the last decade or so it has kicked into high gear.
I understand that you can't have everything be backwards compatible (cough, Revit, cough), and that you reach a point of diminishing returns in trying to use older hardware, equipment, etc. - and are better off upgrading rather than converting signals, using adapters, etc.
Technology advances much quicker now, I get that - but advanced technology isn't what the end user is actually getting. It's often the same technology, just with arbitrary limitations. Most of the people buying into it can't even explain why they think they need it (just that they have to have it).
In dealing with companies that offer various services, you see the same exact attitude of indifference on the part of their management and support staff - why do any more than they absolutely have to if people will just pay whatever they are told to pay, or take whatever they are given?
Allowing Autodesk to dictate how you will practice a discipline that they have repeatedly shown to not have any grasp on whatsoever gives them the go-ahead to make you to accept whatever bullshit they deem you worthy of being force-fed.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Fuck Autodesk 2016 Revit - and all future releases. They are all doomed to be miserable failures at the functional level (and shining successes on the 'we got you to buy and use this - thanks for your fucking money suckers!!!' level). Fuck everyone willingly using Revit and propagating it.
Have fun choking on your own fucking vomit bitches!
-Skullfuck
Time to upgrade all of your current projects (and any that you have to dig out of the hold-bin) to yet another shitty version of the most useless fucking software to ever infect your fucking computer/firm.
I was impressed to see something that I was literally just bitching about make it's way into Revit 2016 - which is to make the default insertion of a linked model 'Origin to Origin'! Good fucking job guys!!! Procede to suck your own dicks in celebration of changing a setting that should have already been the default. It apparently finally got so many requests/complaints that you deemed it worthy of changing. (It will even let you change it to something else and then make that the new default - hell boys, suck 'em twice!!!)
Now if the export to ACAD would only allow you to have the 'Export views on sheets and links as external references' box unchecked as a default - since about the only fucking thing I use Revit for is to get the fuck out of Revit.
Okay - lets run down the short list of updates relevant to the Electrical discipline from the website 'whatrevitwants' (answer: to rape your fucking eyesockets) who apparently got it from 'Revit Sundial' (whatever the fuck that is - and don't even get me started on 'Revit Skyscraper'):
- Sequence for power circuits: To specify the sequence in which power circuits are created, use the Electrical Settings dialog. See Electrical Settings.
- Most recently used panel circuiting: When you create a circuit, Autodesk® Revit® automatically connects to the most recently used panel for the current session. In addition, you can now search the Panel drop-down list. See Select a Panel or Transformer for the Power Circuit.
- Move circuits: To move a circuit directly to a target slot without disrupting other circuits, use the Move To tool. See Move circuits on panel schedules.
Damn - that's pretty short (and meaningless), they are barely trying to disguise their contempt for the people they are fucking over on a daily basis. If that list was any shorter, or more useless - it would be Arnost Lobel's dick.
Who the fuck is setting these people's priorities?!!?
Can they not fucking read any of the vast number of wishlists or the countless posts in forums where people who have a goddamned job to do are begging and pleading for basic functionality and some semblance of user-friendliness?
I have to admit, I used to hold out hope that *eventually* something would have to break - that Autodesk would finally snap the fuck out of it and start playing catch-up, but I have to tell you folks, it ain't fucking happening.
The problem isn't something that can be fixed at this point - because if it were, it would cease to be Revit. It has defined itself by it's own inability to be 'fixed', and a steadfast refusal on the part of it's end users to demand satisfaction.
It has coincided with an across-the-board unwillingness for people to demand that standards be met in all aspects of the modern world. They have been carefully trained by corporations to be willing to pay more, accept less, shut their mouths, and suck it up.
This is especially evident in the way that planned obsolescence has been allowed to run rampant - I remember someone mentioning this concept to me years ago, but over the last decade or so it has kicked into high gear.
I understand that you can't have everything be backwards compatible (cough, Revit, cough), and that you reach a point of diminishing returns in trying to use older hardware, equipment, etc. - and are better off upgrading rather than converting signals, using adapters, etc.
Technology advances much quicker now, I get that - but advanced technology isn't what the end user is actually getting. It's often the same technology, just with arbitrary limitations. Most of the people buying into it can't even explain why they think they need it (just that they have to have it).
In dealing with companies that offer various services, you see the same exact attitude of indifference on the part of their management and support staff - why do any more than they absolutely have to if people will just pay whatever they are told to pay, or take whatever they are given?
Allowing Autodesk to dictate how you will practice a discipline that they have repeatedly shown to not have any grasp on whatsoever gives them the go-ahead to make you to accept whatever bullshit they deem you worthy of being force-fed.
Fuck. That. Shit.
Fuck Autodesk 2016 Revit - and all future releases. They are all doomed to be miserable failures at the functional level (and shining successes on the 'we got you to buy and use this - thanks for your fucking money suckers!!!' level). Fuck everyone willingly using Revit and propagating it.
Have fun choking on your own fucking vomit bitches!
-Skullfuck
Friday, May 1, 2015
Derpwards Compatibility
Greetings Fuckheads,
I decided to browse the Interwebs yesterday evening to see what people were saying about backwards compatibility (or more accurately - the lack thereof) in Das Revit. I read a few posts extolling the virtues of always using the most current version (why wouldn't you want to use the most current version?), and half-ass 'explanations' as to why backwards compatibility isn't compatible with the way Revit does shit (and you are on a subscription plan aren't you - of course you are!)
Those who were having to Revit with outside firms seemed to be having the most fun - since a lot of those firms couldn't justify paying the money for 'new' versions of Revit that had questionable gain for considerable money. Some of the 'features' that the new versions would tout (such as default view naming, etc.) barely rose to the level of 'new features' and were guaranteed to have only take a few minutes of programming (leaving the Revit development team more time to fistfuck each others assholes).
A few Revitbots cried foul, claiming that not all of the 'improvements' to Revit were readily quantifiable as 'new features' (such as increased speed/stability - good luck there). I don't really have the time or mental energy to waste flaming these people on their forums (and would probably just get blocked anyway) but a few people were holding down the fort by pointing out how the Revitbots could always be relied on to never be critical of anything that came down the Revit poop chute - which is absolutely true.
I was also amused by a number of people who pointed out the fact that contractors and fabricators usually end up developing their own drawings since Revit doesn't come even close to having enough detail for them to construct or fabricate - which is intentional, since design intent is all they are trying to convey (negating the point for all of the extra work necessary to build a Revit model), with the responsibility for 'means and methods' being on the contractor (read: the guy who actually knows how to build buildings, install systems, etc. - as opposed to architects and Revitbots who couldn't build a fucking stack of Legos without putting out an eye).
What you are left with are a bunch of buzzwords (starting with the old standby 'BIM', 'collision detection', '3D', 'Database', etc.) in place of demands for functional software that doesn't constrain every move you make while failing to make good on promises from nearly a decade ago. I fucking hate buzzwords - it's a guarantee that whoever is using them doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. I've seen hundreds of presentations for a variety of different products, and as soon as they start breaking out the buzzwords - you might as well take a fucking nap.
'Coordination' is a big one that the Revit elite like to use (when they aren't busy wiping ejaculate off of their monitors). Now, this is a massively important part of any project, but as I've said in the past - you can't expect software to do it for you. In the last few months, I've watched as repeated efforts by different disciplines attempting to use Revit for 'coordination' failed miserably (and these are people who are, and have been on board with Revit for several years).
The big killer is reflected ceiling plans. These used to be the sole responsibility of the Architect, who would compile the lighting, mechanical diffusers, fire sprinklers, and other equipment into one plan - and make sure everything was *coordinated*. As soon as Revit hit, the Architects immediately tried to shuffle this responsibility off onto the different disciplines - but no amount of effort on anyone's part has seemed to result in this resulting in a functional RCP.
Part of the issue stems from the pathetic way that Revit links files together (which has always been at the center of my argument for working in one model). First - there is never any reason for a linked model to be centered any other way than directly the fuck where it needs to be to line up with everyone else. This 'origin to origin' or 'center to center' bullshit needs to go fuck itself. Even when every discipline has been careful to select the proper option, Revit will occasionally decide to shit its pants and leave stuff strewn everywhere.
If there is a fucking ceiling - that is the fucking ceiling. Having lights, diffusers, etc. show up anywhere other than IN THAT FUCKING CEILING like they were placed is a failure on the part of the software. Obviously this can be caused by user error - but that should throw up a flag, not leave everyone fucked into a hole in the ground (and certainly not having people point the finger at the ones who actually did it correctly, and forcing them to point out that it's somebody else's fuckup - which seems to be the standard operating procedure).
Listening to people who spend vast amounts of time and effort attempt to coordinate - only to have those attempts thrown back in their face by fucktarded Reviteers is nerve-wracking. It just about got one architect lackey tossed out a window the other day (and not by me) as they accused someone (a seasoned Reviteer and designer at that) of not 'coordinating', as if they were just dicking around and wasting time rather than making every effort to complete the project so they could get on to the next one, and the next, etc.
Trying to get these views in linked models (or even in some cases - views within one model) to show up correctly, and allow all of the necessary items to be seen by all disciplines can take more time than is allotted to complete the entire project - and all it takes is one dipshit to change one setting, and you are back to square one. The argument that this isn't Autodesk or Revit's fault is disingenuous, because this isn't like blaming a car manufacturer for a driver failing to press the brake pedal and causing an accident.
It's like someone knowingly buying a car that doesn't have brakes installed on it, and then blaming the person they run into for not taking into account that they couldn't stop.
Fuck Autodesk, Fuck Revit, Fuck Revitbots, and if you don't like it - then I would like your reasons why you don't like it - and maybe I will take them into account, and if (after careful reflection) I find them to be valid, then I will issue a retraction of the aforementioned statements.
Just kidding - FUCK YOU!!! And eat a dick while you are at it.
Sincerely,
THe MoTHeRFuCKiNG MaN WiTH THe SKuLLFuCKiNG PLaN
I decided to browse the Interwebs yesterday evening to see what people were saying about backwards compatibility (or more accurately - the lack thereof) in Das Revit. I read a few posts extolling the virtues of always using the most current version (why wouldn't you want to use the most current version?), and half-ass 'explanations' as to why backwards compatibility isn't compatible with the way Revit does shit (and you are on a subscription plan aren't you - of course you are!)
Those who were having to Revit with outside firms seemed to be having the most fun - since a lot of those firms couldn't justify paying the money for 'new' versions of Revit that had questionable gain for considerable money. Some of the 'features' that the new versions would tout (such as default view naming, etc.) barely rose to the level of 'new features' and were guaranteed to have only take a few minutes of programming (leaving the Revit development team more time to fistfuck each others assholes).
A few Revitbots cried foul, claiming that not all of the 'improvements' to Revit were readily quantifiable as 'new features' (such as increased speed/stability - good luck there). I don't really have the time or mental energy to waste flaming these people on their forums (and would probably just get blocked anyway) but a few people were holding down the fort by pointing out how the Revitbots could always be relied on to never be critical of anything that came down the Revit poop chute - which is absolutely true.
I was also amused by a number of people who pointed out the fact that contractors and fabricators usually end up developing their own drawings since Revit doesn't come even close to having enough detail for them to construct or fabricate - which is intentional, since design intent is all they are trying to convey (negating the point for all of the extra work necessary to build a Revit model), with the responsibility for 'means and methods' being on the contractor (read: the guy who actually knows how to build buildings, install systems, etc. - as opposed to architects and Revitbots who couldn't build a fucking stack of Legos without putting out an eye).
What you are left with are a bunch of buzzwords (starting with the old standby 'BIM', 'collision detection', '3D', 'Database', etc.) in place of demands for functional software that doesn't constrain every move you make while failing to make good on promises from nearly a decade ago. I fucking hate buzzwords - it's a guarantee that whoever is using them doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about. I've seen hundreds of presentations for a variety of different products, and as soon as they start breaking out the buzzwords - you might as well take a fucking nap.
'Coordination' is a big one that the Revit elite like to use (when they aren't busy wiping ejaculate off of their monitors). Now, this is a massively important part of any project, but as I've said in the past - you can't expect software to do it for you. In the last few months, I've watched as repeated efforts by different disciplines attempting to use Revit for 'coordination' failed miserably (and these are people who are, and have been on board with Revit for several years).
The big killer is reflected ceiling plans. These used to be the sole responsibility of the Architect, who would compile the lighting, mechanical diffusers, fire sprinklers, and other equipment into one plan - and make sure everything was *coordinated*. As soon as Revit hit, the Architects immediately tried to shuffle this responsibility off onto the different disciplines - but no amount of effort on anyone's part has seemed to result in this resulting in a functional RCP.
Part of the issue stems from the pathetic way that Revit links files together (which has always been at the center of my argument for working in one model). First - there is never any reason for a linked model to be centered any other way than directly the fuck where it needs to be to line up with everyone else. This 'origin to origin' or 'center to center' bullshit needs to go fuck itself. Even when every discipline has been careful to select the proper option, Revit will occasionally decide to shit its pants and leave stuff strewn everywhere.
If there is a fucking ceiling - that is the fucking ceiling. Having lights, diffusers, etc. show up anywhere other than IN THAT FUCKING CEILING like they were placed is a failure on the part of the software. Obviously this can be caused by user error - but that should throw up a flag, not leave everyone fucked into a hole in the ground (and certainly not having people point the finger at the ones who actually did it correctly, and forcing them to point out that it's somebody else's fuckup - which seems to be the standard operating procedure).
Listening to people who spend vast amounts of time and effort attempt to coordinate - only to have those attempts thrown back in their face by fucktarded Reviteers is nerve-wracking. It just about got one architect lackey tossed out a window the other day (and not by me) as they accused someone (a seasoned Reviteer and designer at that) of not 'coordinating', as if they were just dicking around and wasting time rather than making every effort to complete the project so they could get on to the next one, and the next, etc.
Trying to get these views in linked models (or even in some cases - views within one model) to show up correctly, and allow all of the necessary items to be seen by all disciplines can take more time than is allotted to complete the entire project - and all it takes is one dipshit to change one setting, and you are back to square one. The argument that this isn't Autodesk or Revit's fault is disingenuous, because this isn't like blaming a car manufacturer for a driver failing to press the brake pedal and causing an accident.
It's like someone knowingly buying a car that doesn't have brakes installed on it, and then blaming the person they run into for not taking into account that they couldn't stop.
Fuck Autodesk, Fuck Revit, Fuck Revitbots, and if you don't like it - then I would like your reasons why you don't like it - and maybe I will take them into account, and if (after careful reflection) I find them to be valid, then I will issue a retraction of the aforementioned statements.
Just kidding - FUCK YOU!!! And eat a dick while you are at it.
Sincerely,
THe MoTHeRFuCKiNG MaN WiTH THe SKuLLFuCKiNG PLaN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)