Autodesk Bob

Massing was supposed to be the silver lining to the cloud. With the new Massing tools, you were supposed to finally able to create forms that were impossible in Revit 2009.

Verdict? It's true: the old massing tools and flow are gone.

Wait for it....unfortunately. HD YouTube version here.

Yes - you can create some of what the old massing tools couldn't, but at the same time - you can't create all the forms that it could. And furthermore, you can't deeply iterate the results. So there's new stuff - but not all of the old stuff. To put it another way - it's a great 'answer' for someone that doesn't yet understand the 'question'.

What!? Let me explain. When you create form in in 2009 Massing and the Family Editor - the sketches and profiles to create those forms are not lost. You can still go back into "Edit" mode (the same still holds true in the 2010 Family Editor). But you can't go back and edit the sketch that was in Massing 2010 - only the sketch that is.

You can certainly manipulate (rotate, stretch, push, pull) what you've created. You can even add additional points, edges and profiles (with some exception). But once you finish a sketch - that's the starting point. No more sketch mode. The results? In the image below - the blended form "A" can be modified via sketch into blended form "B". Note how fillet arcs have been added in the process. This can be done in 2009 Massing.

This process of reiteration is lost in the 2010 Massing Tool. The closest you can get is to push vertices to get from "1" into "2". You can push/pull vertices and faces - but you can't turn a point into a curve. I can't imagine the reasoning behind this limitation. And in order to allow for the most flexibility, there's heavy use of splines (for both paths and profiles). Splines will certainly allow for the creation of more morphic forms.

















Yet in the strangest of decisions - if you import a 2009 project which contains masses, these forms may be manipulated via the present rules in 2010. You may still edit the paths and profiles/sketches. AND you can even create new forms using the existing metaphors using the present rules. The engine is still under the hood! But inexplicably - this approach and functionality is not exposed if you're creating new Masses in 2010.














In Revit 2009, all of the forms in the above image may be derived from any of the other forms. This flexibility gives a designer the wonderful ability to intuitively and quickly move between creation, iteration, rationalization and eventually resolution. Inexplicably, this design flow has been removed from Massing in Revit 2010.

In Revit 2010:

• If you start with a circle, but later discover that you meant ellipse? Start over.
• If you start with a square but meant a circle? Start over.
• If you start with a line, but meant a curve or spline? Start over.
  
• If you start with an acute angle, but meant a radial fillet? Start over.
  

Digital clay? Digital concrete.

What seems incredulous is that this geometric toolset wasn't designed to compliment the present approach to Massing - but to replace it. And not unlike the approach to the proposed UI changes, the customer is again faced with a decision that is more "either/or" rather than "both/and". Yet another imposition without a transition. And ironically, the new method of form creation is not available in the 2010 Family Editor. Does Autodesk really believe it necessary that Revit users should have one approach for creating form when designing the whole building, but another approach for designing the pieces and parts that go in them?

Creating 3D forms in the computer used to be a significant task. But now that task is rather trivial. Many elegant and inexpensive (if not free) applications can create complex geometric shapes. The deeper challenge is within the ability to further rationalize those forms into surfaces, shapes, etc. that can leverage cost effective production and assemblage methods.

It's really wonderful that Revit users will finally be able to transition spline based profiles across spline based paths from within Revit. But have you ever tried to dimension a spline? Ever try to communicate a spline in order to resolve construction? It's essential that the rationalization be a compliment to the iteration. Why? Because great design is more than an exploration of geometric possibility - but of geometric plausibility.

Autodesk needs to take particular care in two areas:

First: Autodesk should stop exciting customers with a five-minute demos of a massing tool that on further investigation actually turns out to be quite limiting. By doing so they run the risk of building resentment when they could have otherwise built a trusting business relationship.

Second: Revit is by far the best BIM tool available. The integration of Building, Content, Documentation and Multi-User / Multi-Discipline work flow are well complimented with being highly implementable. But so long as there remains little competition, it seems that Autodesk has begun settling for better rather than striving for great. For example, it apparently takes Autodesk two years to bring new functionality to market even when the customers aren't even asking for it (cough...ribbon...ahem). But it can take even longer to develop the functionality customers really do care about (cough...site tools...sputter). If this continues, ever so slowly a vacuum will begin to form.

Before the internet-thingy, a well-heeled technology company could control marketing, distribution and FUD through a global channel of distributors and resellers. Only a decade ago, Information Age companies enjoyed being complimented by Industrial Age business practices (dutifully shipping actual boxes - think about it!).

Now? Someone can read a Twitter about a new application, download the demo the same day, purchase a copy the next and blog about it by the end of the week. No distributors or resellers. Immediate access. Training? Podcasts.

Think about it: two years. Two whole years. Add to the mix a small, highly motivated, enthusiastic team that doesn't know when to take "no" for an answer. What could possibly happen in two years? It's not like it's happened before, right?

Think about it.