Comments on: Revolt of the Revit Ribbon Renegades http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/ Mostly AutoCAD discussion, but also music, image manipulation and video Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:13:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steve Johnson http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/#comment-5110 Steve Johnson Wed, 25 Aug 2010 08:20:28 +0000 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/?p=590#comment-5110 See <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/ps/dl/item?siteID=123112&id=13126336&linkID=9243099" rel="nofollow">here</a>. See here.

]]> By: mandeep singh http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/#comment-5108 mandeep singh Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:10:58 +0000 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/?p=590#comment-5108 dear sir can you tell me please how to change revit 2010 ribbon in classic view. if anybody know please mail me at msj1132@hotmail.com dear sir can you tell me please how to change revit 2010 ribbon in classic view. if anybody know please mail me at msj1132@hotmail.com

]]> By: Dave http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/#comment-4108 Dave Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:26:26 +0000 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/?p=590#comment-4108 I was annoyed at the ribbon when 2010 was installed... but now that I have been using it for a year IMHO i find it faster and easier to navigate. The "Where the .... is that button" moment i'm sure every 2010 user has have all but gone for me. I found the ribbon daunting at first, but now its very intuitive. eg. Every thing i need to model the building is all under Home. When i need to detail Annotate has it all. If you stick with it and learn to live with it its not so bad. else have a cup of concrete and harden up. :P Dave. I was annoyed at the ribbon when 2010 was installed… but now that I have been using it for a year IMHO i find it faster and easier to navigate. The “Where the …. is that button” moment i’m sure every 2010 user has have all but gone for me.

I found the ribbon daunting at first, but now its very intuitive. eg.
Every thing i need to model the building is all under Home. When i need to detail Annotate has it all.

If you stick with it and learn to live with it its not so bad.
else have a cup of concrete and harden up. :P

Dave.

]]> By: Revit user since version 8 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/#comment-3989 Revit user since version 8 Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:32:22 +0000 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/?p=590#comment-3989 by now it's obvious that revit will need both the classic UI and the ribbon supported.. but the last thing revit needs is to be backward compatible. whether it's a client or an architect using revit- everyone needs to be on the same page- that's what BIM is all about.. by now it’s obvious that revit will need
both the classic UI and the ribbon supported..
but the last thing revit needs is to be
backward compatible. whether it’s a client
or an architect using revit- everyone needs
to be on the same page- that’s what BIM is
all about..

]]> By: Steve Johnson http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/#comment-3628 Steve Johnson Tue, 12 May 2009 00:57:27 +0000 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/?p=590#comment-3628 David, thank you for your perspective. Point 1 applies to AutoCAD-based verticals, too. Try working on a Civil 3D 2009 file in Civil 3D 2008 and you'll be out of luck, even though they both nominally use the 2007 DWG format. This is one of many things I've intended to cover here but haven't yet found the time for. David, thank you for your perspective. Point 1 applies to AutoCAD-based verticals, too. Try working on a Civil 3D 2009 file in Civil 3D 2008 and you’ll be out of luck, even though they both nominally use the 2007 DWG format. This is one of many things I’ve intended to cover here but haven’t yet found the time for.

]]> By: David Kozina http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/05/11/revolt-of-the-revit-ribbon-renegades/#comment-3625 David Kozina Mon, 11 May 2009 14:46:14 +0000 http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/?p=590#comment-3625 I will be the first to admit that I am a Revit novice. There are some things I really like about Revit from the little I've used it, but there is a lot I'm dissapointed in, mostly the difficulty in getting the hardcopy output I'm looking for - (seems to be very mediocre quality 'drafting' to my eyes) - but perhaps this has something to do with my first statement above. At any rate, there are two things I'm especially not keen on - and they are related, IMO: 1- Revit has no ability to save back to older versions. You can bring a project forward to a newer version, but not the means to save back. So if your client is using Revit 2009, you had better also be using 2009, in order to be able to collaborate. If you try to use a 2010 product, you will likely be starting over. I find this to be rather bothersome, personally, but what do I know about the difficulties of creating the means for 'legacy' data translation? Just because Autodesk can do it for AutoCAD means nothing, I suppose; apparently Revit is one tough cookie for Autodesk to figure out. But this leads to issue #2: 2- If you have to work on projects of differing versions, you also **need to become proficient with the differing GUIs of Revit**. So that just when one finally gets somewhat accustomed to Revit 2009 (klunky interface though it may have), along comes 2010 with a completely different look and feel. To me, this is very callous behavior directed towards the user, and makes it all the more difficult to become proficient in using the software, let alone cost effective for any company or individual who may be trying to adopt it into their workflow. And this says nothing of creating custom detail libraries or 'families', for those, one had better create them in the earlier version, or they will have to be redone if needed for an older version. And, looking ahead a bit - if you happen to hire someone that *is* proficient with 2010, or 2011, and they have to work on a project using version 2009, that individual may very well be floundering about the (klunky) interface looking for tools that may not even exist in the older version, adding to *their* frustration. This also does not seem very cost effective for the offices who are trying to adopt the software. Just some thoughts. YMMV. I will be the first to admit that I am a Revit novice.
There are some things I really like about Revit from the little I’ve used it, but there is a lot I’m dissapointed in, mostly the difficulty in getting the hardcopy output I’m looking for – (seems to be very mediocre quality ‘drafting’ to my eyes) – but perhaps this has something to do with my first statement above.
At any rate, there are two things I’m especially not keen on – and they are related, IMO:
1- Revit has no ability to save back to older versions. You can bring a project forward to a newer version, but not the means to save back. So if your client is using Revit 2009, you had better also be using 2009, in order to be able to collaborate. If you try to use a 2010 product, you will likely be starting over.
I find this to be rather bothersome, personally, but what do I know about the difficulties of creating the means for ‘legacy’ data translation? Just because Autodesk can do it for AutoCAD means nothing, I suppose; apparently Revit is one tough cookie for Autodesk to figure out. But this leads to issue #2:
2- If you have to work on projects of differing versions, you also **need to become proficient with the differing GUIs of Revit**. So that just when one finally gets somewhat accustomed to Revit 2009 (klunky interface though it may have), along comes 2010 with a completely different look and feel. To me, this is very callous behavior directed towards the user, and makes it all the more difficult to become proficient in using the software, let alone cost effective for any company or individual who may be trying to adopt it into their workflow. And this says nothing of creating custom detail libraries or ‘families’, for those, one had better create them in the earlier version, or they will have to be redone if needed for an older version. And, looking ahead a bit – if you happen to hire someone that *is* proficient with 2010, or 2011, and they have to work on a project using version 2009, that individual may very well be floundering about the (klunky) interface looking for tools that may not even exist in the older version, adding to *their* frustration. This also does not seem very cost effective for the offices who are trying to adopt the software.
Just some thoughts. YMMV.

]]>