I think I've finally figured out how this works (link here). Every February 2nd, he leaves his office to look at the AUGI Wish List. But what happens if he see his shadow? Six more years of no site tools:
"It's not just a question of making a list of everything everybody's asking for and the prioritizing it and sticking it in the software."
Well, obviously. But there's a catch. If you're not careful you end up creating answers to questions no one's asking, or likely to ask, or need answered, or specifically don't want answered, or will even go as far as spend significant amounts of personal, free time trying to undo an untimely, ill-considered answer.
I'm still not sure if he's going for irony or just stating the obvious or being obviously ironic. I'll guess just obvious, no irony yeah yeah I get it nudge nudge wink wink intended.
Plenty-o-space in the Comments section for additional favorite quotes and well considered responses (limited to one favorite quote per person while supplies last other conditions may apply see store for details).
2011 Alphas out? Planning beyond 2012 underway? Can't help but wonder what next February 2nd will bring...
12 comments:
"All that we'll be left with is the shape making. We'll become professional shape makers." - funny.
Fabrication tools, and analytical tools didn't make it into this release. As a matter of fact some of the included analysis tools in Revit MEP were ripped out... It practically says to the community: navigate the IES website and install it yourselves, or buy our Ecotect/GBS package, what? The solar tool on labs was released as an afterthought in labs. I suppose we are supposed to use as much of the whole portfolio of 97 applications to get the job done.
What this release did focus on was one thing: pretty.
Pretty Conceptual model making tools (shape making, perhaps as a backup plan in case architects want to be stylists)
Pretty User Interface
- pretty big icons
- pretty slow
- pretty cumbersome
- pretty half-baked and buggy
Pretty much nothing else for the typical user. If you're looking for pretty site tools, Civil 3D is your only hope for a one-way trip out of Revit into the land of AutoCAD customized to the 3rd degree. Pretty scary.
-S
While I will make no attempt to wade into the larger subject matter of this post (chastise or ridicule me if you'd like), I wanted to address Sean's comment, which is actually not a true statement.
Revit MEP Analytical Functionality
From a capability perspective, there were no significant capability regressions in Revit MEP 2010 compared to the previous IES-based functionality delivered in Revit MEP 2009. We actually took great pains to ensure this as we transitioned calc engines.
Users can still calculate Peak Heating and Cooling Loads, and directly transfer models to the IES VE. In fact, there were substantial improvements to gbXML output, Analytical Control, and performance related to these workflows.
The full IES VE was never delivered in Revit MEP or licensed, just the applicable Load Caluclation capability.
The Solar Radiation Tech Preview contains technology acquired from Ecotect, and simply was not able to be integrated within the release timeframe, simple as that.
As I've stated myself, and you'll hear from many folks at Autodesk (Phil B included), it's very important that we connect Revit to the Simulation and Analysis capabilities you need to get your job done.
Cheers,
Kyle Bernhardt
Product Manager
BIM Simulation & emerging Technology
Autodesk
Agreed that analysis is critically important as is the presumption that none of our buildings float mid-air. Ergo site tools.
Long term? IMO integrated analysis in Revit may fundamentally flawed due to the lack of meaningful permutation and iteration (i.e., potential range of solutions) without maintaining the disruption of exported and decoupled information.
My apologies Kyle. If it's truly a one for one swap of functionality to the new engine, hooray! Tighter integration is certainly something we all want to see... which seems to be a strong focus in Revit MEP, so it would be a real boon to see more tools built into RAC.
Most architects don't have both.
The real trouble is the separate analysis tools allow for change to the data for different scenarios, and have no effect on the model. As Phil (the younger) just snuck in above my comment: "exported and decoupled information" is bad. Especially when moving at the rate of design.
Perhaps the conceptual massing environment needs to evolve into a truly parametric building configurator/analysis tool that can drive the detailed building design in the project environment. What'dya say, 2020?
While I would take issue with a number of things Phil B. says, I'll focus on an obvious one - his "thoughts" on the new UI.
It’s extremely disturbing to see that he’s so thoroughly out of touch with his customers. Does he really believe the b.s. he's spouting, or is he just paid to toe the line? Is it possible that his head is really that far up his arse, or is he just trying to do damage control while they’re internally backpedaling?
He's blaming the criticism on “very experienced Revit users” clinging to "all that terrible stuff they got used to using is gone... it wasn't a great interface... we knew it when we started the project". Is he freaking kidding me? This guy is VP of Autodesk and he doesn’t have a freaking clue. It really appears to be hopeless.
It was indeed a clean swap out, making sure previous workflows were still in place. I was part of the team that made sure of that.
You guys hit the nail on the head in regards to the current challenges of the available workflows today. Exported data and different analysis environments tend to breed point analysis processes rather than true iterative analysis & design, unless the tool is in the hand of a skilled well trained user.
However, I'd argue that today BIM fundamentally changes the analysis landscape for certain workflows as it really streamlines the model creation process on the analysis side.
Sean, I do share your thoughts around the massing environment and connection to analysis. It's that stage that the big ticket items are defined, if you're into a fully developed model you're less liable to accommodate drastic change.
Of course, there's always room to grow in Revit on this front, which given the nature of the posts over in this neck of the interwebs, I'm sure will be pointed out. :-D
Cheers,
Kyle
@ixxx69: This interview of Phil B took place at the AIA conference this year at the end of April/beginning of May in San Francisco. Revit 2010 had been out for 1 month. Obviously the feed back then and the feedback now on the UI are different as more people have upgraded to 2010 and more people have gotten the chance to use it. As for the older interface being "not so great", we heard this from customers time and time again that wanted the UI in Revit to be overhauled/updated/improved/etc.
@ Scott: Thanks for sharing the time frame. I would like to say that changes things, but it doesn’t. I don’t see how “obviously the feedback then and the feedback now on the UI are different”. What’s different about it? The feedback has been exactly the same since day one. Let’s not forget about the Beta, which adds a couple months to that time frame… But back to your statement… what are you suggesting? Phil B. wouldn’t make that statement today? You seem to still be defending the veracity of it.
As for hearing from customers “time and time again that they wanted the UI in Revit to be overhauled/updated/improved/etc.”, I’ve been following the AUGI boards for five years, and it would be extremely misleading of you to suggest that criticisms have centered around the Design Bar or toolbars other than a few users wanted some snazzier icons. Yes, there are a hundred things about the Classic UI that need updating, but not a single one of those problems was addressed by the Ribbon. Probably the most frequent complaint about the Classic UI was too many mouse clicks… so what does the Ribbon do? Add even more mouse clicks.
Here it is months later, and you’re spouting the same B.S. as Phil B.. To save you the trouble, I’ve heard all the arguments about the Ribbon making it easier to switch between Autodesk products, and making it easier for new users to learn – it’s all flat out B.S.. If you want to suggest that Phil B. now recognizes the Ribbon was a huge mistake completely missing the boat on what improvements customers were actually requesting, and Autodesk is going back to the Classic UI and build on that, I’m very willing to forgive and forget.
He's blaming the criticism on “very experienced Revit users” clinging to "all that terrible stuff they got used to using is gone... it wasn't a great interface... we knew it when we started the project".
Contempt is contempt whether this was said in May or December.
We "very experienced Revit users" have also used Photoshop, Flash, Microsoft Office, 3dsMax, AutoCad, Sketchup, and on and on. And we have opinions about which interfaces enhance the product and which don't. If Mr. Bernstein wants to think we're all fools, let him.
"As for the older interface being "not so great", we heard this from customers time and time again that wanted the UI in Revit to be overhauled/updated/improved/etc." - Scott D
I agree with ixxx69 that this comment is quite misleading. Yes, the Classic UI wasn't all it could have been, but it is considerably better than the Ribbon, which I can't say I have ever read any user comments suggesting such a thing.
What has been asked for time and time again from customers is;
1. Less mouse clicking
2. Less mouse travel
3. More tools and particularly options being shortcut key accessible.
4. Remembering last used Options Bar settings
5. Less dialog boxes
The Ribbon has done very little to address these much requested improvements.
I think it's funny that for along time a standard answer from Autodesk is that Revit isn't Autocad and don't try and make it work like Autocad. Now they saw oh we want to make them look and work the same. To quote Billy from Entourage this is what happens when "suits" make decisions. Autodesk should be smart enough to realize that 3DS Max, Autocad and Revit inherently different which cause different work flows for each software. Make all their UI's look and work the same is about the dumbest reason for changing it. Unless down the road they plan on releasing a mega software that does everything.
well now we have revit 2012 here and we can't use the classic UI with it.. but that's fine with me because revit is ten years old and revit 2011 is the best version there will ever be.. and contrary to what some believe about using the classic UI with 2011- it works great in every way shape and form.. 2011 was the last version i will ever buy from autodesk and i will use the classic UI forever.. thank you autodesk for being so stupid..
Post a Comment