This is a long post because it is huge news! It appears something I have wished for since Autodesk first offered an Revit/AutoCAD bundle is about to happen. I read it first on Gregory Arkins blog but here is the detail from the Autodesk FAQ he posted;
Changes for AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite 2009.1
(section 1 of the FAQ document)
1.1 What changes are being made to the AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite?
The 2009.1 release of AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite expands the software applications that comprise the suite to include AutoCAD 2009, Auto CAD Architecture 2009, and Revit Architecture 2009.1.2 Why is Autodesk including AutoCAD Architecture 2009 software in the AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite 2009.1?
Autodesk is including AutoCAD Architecture 2009 software in the AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite 2009.1 to make it easier and more cost effective for AutoCAD Architecture customers to transition to building information modeling (BIM) using Revit Architecture software. Now AutoCAD Architecture users can benefit from the flexibility of having a single license that provides AutoCAD 2009, AutoCAD Architecture 2009 and Revit Architecture 2009 software applications, eliminating the need to maintain separate licenses of AutoCAD Architecture and Revit Architecture.1.3 Will AutoCAD Architecture software still be available as a stand-alone license?
Yes, AutoCAD Architecture software will still be available as a stand-alone license for AutoCAD Architecture users who are not yet ready to transition to building information modeling using Revit Architecture software.1.4 Are there any feature enhancements to the products in AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite 2009.1?
No; there are no changes to the features and functionality in the products that comprise AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite 2009.1.
A refreshing change!
In the past I have asked (at the highest levels); Why is there no "Revit/Architectural Desktop Series", similar to the Revit/AutoCAD Series, being offered as a migration path for ADT Subscription users?
The answers were always rather vague but along the lines of; We don't see a work-flow requirement...
Why would you need both? As an AutoCAD Architecture (ACA) user, and owner, I see a real need to run both platforms;
As an ACA owner, I did not want to move to Revit + AutoCAD as the "AutoCAD component" was inferior to what I have in AutoCAD Architecture. I often use ACA features within AutoCAD files where Revit data will never be available. Just yesterday I used ACA Scheduling to analyse areas and count car parks in a site.dwg file originally drawn in LT97! Yes, I could have imported it into Revit for that but opening and editing the AutoCAD file, while still having counting and area scheduling, was the simplest solution.
While I work for TWL I have access to Revit anyway as we run a network license mix which allows both platforms. It's just fortunate that the current requirements for both don't currently exceed the licenses. A single user, like I am at home, doesn't have this flexibility and has to commit to ACA or Revit, or spend a fortune!
An AutoCAD fit for Architects? When Architectural Desktop became AutoCAD Architecture it was promoted as "AutoCAD for Architects". I wondered;
If AutoCAD Architecture is "AutoCAD [made better] for Architects" why isn't it part of the AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite? They get the "less better plain AutoCAD" yet it's aimed at Architects?
Matching MEP: It also brings the "Revit Architecture Suite" into line with the "Revit MEP Suite" which has always bundled Revit MEP and AutoCAD MEP.
What prompted this change?
I have no idea but I wonder if it was customer demand or a desire to increase ACA/Revit migration. Since I gave up my little battle for this option back in 2006 it certainly wasn't to me!
The official line is:
"..to make it easier and more cost effective for AutoCAD Architecture customers to transition to building information modelling (BIM) using Revit Architecture software."
If that is the case why have Autodesk made it harder and less cost effective for years? There is much mention of "transitioning" in the FAQ and one line leads me to wonder about the future of ACA.
[ACA] "will still be available as a stand-alone license for AutoCAD Architecture users who are not yet ready to transition" [to Revit]
Does "not yet ready" imply there will be a time by which it's necessary to be ready?
Its strange that bundling was never a problem with Revit MEP but it was developed after the Autodesk acquisition. Was there some sort of condition in the acquisition agreement for Revit Architecture preventing this until now?
Whatever the true reasons, it has already prompted plenty of speculation in the Autodesk and AUGI Discussion Groups.
Is this the end of AutoCAD Architecture? No-No-No-Yes!*
- No, because it's still going to be sold as a stand-alone product
- No, because it's a still a very viable Building Modelling tool
- No, because it's got a large user base, or rather license base as I wonder how many just use it as AutoCAD.
- Yes, in New Zealand anyway..
Revit has taken off in New Zealand and, I suspect, effectively wiped out any ACA growth**. Those that are using it either have large legacy datasets or have not yet tackled the migration to Revit.
If you are using ACA for facilities or building life-cycle management , as was promoted before Revit became Autodesk Revit, migration is a major task. You can't just start the next project with Revit and forget the past. Running both products is the only option but Revit will dominate as collaboration drives people towards similar platforms. It's ACA which is the orphan in our part of the world.
There are still plenty of skeptics luddites people who think BIM is a fad or AutoCAD is all you need. However, even old dogs will have to learn new BIM tricks when Revit is a project requirement! That isn't going to happen in the future, it's happening now.
* To be read in the voice of Jim from "The Vicar of Dibley"
** I have no hard proof of this but it's my impression from the ACA/Revit user community.
NOTE: Due to some TypePad problems I had to remove & re-post this item several times. If you saw a couple of versions of it in your feed reader that's why.
