Comments on: Autodesk’s Revit rebellion reaction

By: Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:37:45 +0000

Ayman, I have absolutely no idea, but maybe somebody else will chime in with an answer.

By: ayman

ayman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:35:35 +0000

revit arch 2010 is just a perfect product for me, but I just wonder if autodisk could come up with a blugin product similar to architecture generative componant from Bently or there is a blugin that I do not knew of, please advice.

By: Chris Wade

Chris Wade — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:05:23 +0000

I wish it were as simple as R. Paul Waddington puts it, the problem is now that there is a Revit MEP on the market, many of our clients are putting it into their contracts that we must use it, so we either try to make it work or don’t get the business, neither option is very appealing at the moment though.

By: Chris Wade

Chris Wade — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:50:23 +0000

Revit MEP has a long way to go before it is usable, it needs conduit tools, fixes to plotting, etc.

As to why the wishlist forum is so empty, it is because we have been saying the same thing for so long, that we are honestly getting tired of it.

By: Robin Capper

Robin Capper — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:58:54 +0000

Further to Scott’s comments… Inventor previewed their fluent UX on Labs. From what I’ve seen Inventor has the most mature user focused implementation of the Ribbon UX. It’s got some nice customisation, like unbundle flyouts without the complication of CUI, and small icon no text state etc that Revit/AutoCAD lacks.
Perhaps the benefit of sharing openly earlier in the development process?

By: Steve Johnson

Steve Johnson — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:53:59 +0000

Scott, I commend Autodesk Labs for exposing some of Autodesk’s future technologies to early user scrutiny. There are limits to this approach (you can’t really do it with core changes), but I’d be happy to see it expanded as much as possible.

Oh, and belated happy 50th birthday!

By: Scott Sheppard

Scott Sheppard — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:35:36 +0000

Autodesk Labs was created so technologies that are in their early stages of development can be commented on. There is plenty of time to make changes to these technologies before they are considered for inclusion into the product line. Some technologies get incorporated, e.g. Impression. Some technologies do not, e.g. Visual Search. At Autodesk Labs we listen and respond to feedback on a daily basis.

By: R. Paul Waddington

R. Paul Waddington — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:10:30 +0000

AutoCAD R13 was a pain (for some) and a lesson for Autodesk that it has never fully understood. It also revealed, the failings, and another side of a coin that is rarely considered. Several years after the ‘event’, an Autodesk employee was surprised to here me say R13 had presented absolutely NO tech’ problems for my customers. At first she said she could not believe what I had just said – stating “everybody else did” – but then asked why: my answer, “we simply didn’t sell it”. We knew of the problems, as many testers did, so chose to protect our customers, ensuring they knew the issues, and holding ALL back from buying until C4, and then only if we were absolutely sure they were in the clear.

The point here is simply: Autodesk, and other developers will always make mistakes but it is the dealers and users, who MUST rush forward, who compound the problem. Subscription complicates this issue but at the end of the day the dealers and users are still not forced to use software that is going to cost them financially: all our markets are mature enough now to EXPECT commercially viable new/upgrade software and if it is not forth coming simply don’t use it, send it back and CANCEL the subscription.

Make the decision quickly and decisively and don’t look back!

Autodesk will get the message: and even with their unconscionable ‘late fee’ penalty a company/user will still be better off financially, in many cases, than trying to, and, persevering with a product that is clearly costing. Work out the actual cost (loss), in dollars, of coping with a problem and then the added flow-on cost (to the users of preparing and sending) the FREE advice your complaint gives Autodesk.

Even in the tough times Autodesk are still making money and their employees are being paid: if their products do not doing the same for you in quick time – give them back.

By: Sean Doughtie

Sean Doughtie — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:08:20 +0000

In my opinion, this is just an indication of what the future releases of Autodesk products will look like. You have only three choices; stay on subscription, skip upgrades at a huge penalty (ie: new price structure) or not upgrade at all and have the industry leave you behind. Customers always get treated this way when a company has virtually no competition.

By: Brian Benton

Brian Benton — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:03:37 +0000

Imagine how bad the releases would be without Beta testing? The best way to see if something works is to put it into production, on a deadline. If something is going to break, or fail, it will be on a Friday afternoon, just before the drawings have to go to the printer! If you want to buy a house, visit it during a rain storm. that way you will see the leaks before you move in!

By: Robin Capper

Robin Capper — Tue, 26 May 2009 05:34:35 +0000

As you said Steve “What happens in beta stays in beta” but I think, hope, a lot has been learned from this process as it has rippled right to the top of the tree.