Tools

One of the best analogies I've ever come up with when comparing CAD to Revit is that the former is like having a complete set of sockets, wrenches, and other tools - while the latter is like having a hammer. I can take bolts off with a hammer - given enough time, and if nobody gives a fuck about the result - but why? Especially when I already have a tool that is so multi-functional that it is like having a pair of swiss-army vicegrips with built in bolt-cutters, screwdrivers, a cutting torch, and welder. All of the 'tools' that Revit claims to bring to the party only make it more difficult to complete even the simplest of tasks. Burying important tools under several tons of shit, and a useless 'ribbon' that I am close to eliminating any need for with a combination of keyboard shortcuts (many of which should have been automatically assigned to the first two letters of the goddamned word), and the Quick Access Toolbar (QAT - although I hate that fucking Three Letter Acronym (TLA). The QAT revolutionized the way I used ACAD - I don't actually remember when it showed up, but I know exactly when I started using it because it was at the same time as the 'ribbon' showed up. (I think it might've shown up in '09 - which I believe was when it showed up in Revit). I went straight from '08 to '10 - and the first thing I did was turn off the ribbon, slapped a few commands up on the QAT, and I was rocking on a whole new level. I have one line of QAT a the top of the screen, a transparent line with min/max/close on the right and [-][Top][2D Wireframe] on the left (that I wish I could get to fuck off - interestingly enough the 2012 release managed to try to convince people that (out of the box) you should be drawing on a washed out dark grey rather than a nice dark contrasting black that is easy on the eyes (more on that in a sec). At the model I have one line with model/layout tabs (that I wish I could get to fuck off - more on that in a sec too), and then one more line with coordinates, snap/grid/ortho/polar/osnap (all of which I toggle with Function Keys), plus miscellaneous stuff on the right, almost all of which could be eliminated. I switch between drawings with CTRL+TAB, and now with Windows 7, they show up in Windows almost like separate instances of the program. At any rate, it gives me a vast swath of real-estate to do my work in. I remember arguing with users/IT people years ago about how important it was to not have a bunch of crap that I'm not using taking up space - especially once large flat panels became the norm (I've been using computers since the TRS-80 and Apple IIe mind you - although my first home computer was a TI4a that plugged into a television set, so I had a huge monitor decades ago). The fact is I'm looking at a drawing that might be 24" x 36", 30" x 42", or even 36" x 48" - and I need to be able to see as much as possible. Revit shoots that mentality square in the nuts though - with menus and ribbon all taking up space. Putting them on a second (or third or fourth) monitor works best, although attaching keyboard shortcuts to the project browser and properties were steps one and two, minimizing the ribbon was next - although invariably there will be some idiotic command you have to pull it down and access (I'm slowly eliminating these by putting them on the Revit QAT (or should I say 'TWAT' - as in Totally Worthless Access Toolbar - since even once I have commands at my disposal the rest of the software sucks). I have yet to find a way to completely eliminate the 'ribbon' completely (although there are instructions available online for reverting it back to a 'classic' interface - which thank god for that at least). Okay - now a few words about how I use ACAD. I attempted to convince some of the Revit cheerleaders early on that I needed them to stop sucking on the Revit cock for a minute to see if there was something in my workflow that could be changed in order to make the transition. Unfortunately at the mention of anything other than 'Revit is God' their brains went into shutdown. Projects continued to come at a furious pace - and, of course, the economy taking a nosedive resulted in layoffs, meaning that even with a slowdown, my workload never actually decreased (if nothing else - it increased, on top of having to de-clusterfuck the projects that those who had been laid off had left in their wake. In short - I needed my tools to be functioning at warp fucking speed in order to even come close to completing projects on time. I couldn't be stopping every five minutes to figure out some kind of 'workaround', or hunt on the internet for three hours to figure out if anyone had any idea how to accomplish some (seemingly) basic task (answer: they didn't). Okay - so a black background. First and foremost. I was able to switch Revit to black as well, but again - a black background does not a fully functioning piece of software make (sorry - I went Yoda there for a minute, and Model Space - it's all you need. Obviously there are about as many ways of using ACAD as there are people - which is one of the beauties of it. Some level of CAD standards are necessary if you are going to have multiple people working on the same project, and have any kind of consistency - but as long as everyone is following the most important principles (most importantly - don't fuck with anybody elses drawings), then a little variety in the way it is used won't hurt anything. I have had the model vs paperspace argument for as long as I have been doing electrical design. At the first firm I worked at, they were strictly using model space until they hired a woman who thought that paper was the way to go. Watching her work was like pulling teeth - as she was constantly working in model windows inside of paperspace, and every time she would zoom it would mess up the scale, she would have to undo it (if she noticed it). Now, I know some people who use paperspace with a high degree of proficiency and with great success. I do not argue with these people, especially when they are in different disciplines - but I do not concede that it is necessarily superior. Working with details with multiple scales on the same sheet is one place where paperspace shines, and I can understand the reasoning behind having one file containing all of your drawings, however there are some downsides to this as well. When I first started designing (and for some time after) each sheet would have its own file. Interestingly, this did not preclude the use of paperspace for layout/scaling, but it had the major advantage of several people being able to work on different aspects of the same project - all at the same time. The downside was coordination, but this could be done with a little copy/paste, XREF, or simply by people talking to each other (perish the thought) but go into a 'paperspace only' drawing with multiple sheets on separate layers all drawn in model space (which is how it is supposed to be done, the only thing that should be in paperspace is the titleblock and views - this seems to escape some people) and you will have a mongolian clusterfuck. Multiple users can access it, but only by saving copies, and then carefully cutting and pasting to compile them. This actually is one place where the concept of Revit, if not the reality of Revit, shines - although I can guarantee multi-user functionality (and BIM for that matter) could have been added. Fast-forward a few years, remove a few employees, and 99.9% of our projects are being done front to back by one person, and I eventually shifted into my present mode - one file for the entire project, but done completely in model space. Each sheet gets its own titleblock, scaled as necessary. A boundary box that doesn't print allows each sheet to be selected in a window for printing. Flip on VPORTS, and you can be in 2, 3, or even 4 places in the same project. Revit managed this - but you have to open multiple views in order to accomplish it. The beauty of the way I have been doing it, is that when you zoom extents in a single viewport - the whole fucking project is right there in front of you. Not strewn across multiple views, tabs, etc. - ALL RIGHT THERE. This way of working did not come overnight - but was the culmination of years of fighting to keep track all of the information I was attempting to compile, sort, and display where I could access, manipulate, and review it. Even some Revit die-hards have given me some credit (although you won't hear them doing it in front of their Revit buddies) because it was such a simple solution, and yet so elegant. Printing might take an extra minute - however it makes you actually look at the drawings you are plotting, rather than simply dumping four tons of data onto the plotter. It is also incredibly easy to leave yourself notes, or mark where you left off. It is necessary to export and regularly update backgrounds, and there is little to no coordination with Revit (although I have, on a few projects, conceded to at least put major pieces of equipment, lights, and other 3D elements into the Revit model for coordination purposes - and almost instantly regretted it). The fact is - almost all of my equipment is easily relocated in the field. A light is interfering with ductwork (despite an RCP & Mechanical being done in Revit)? Move that fucker a few inches - problem solved. I don't claim to be some kind of psychic who can coordinate everything and eliminate all issues in the field - but neither can someone who is attempting to model everything in Revit. I have watched untold hours be wasted attempting to coordinate ductwork with structure - they finally get it just right, and while it is being constructed the owner decides to install taller racks than they originally intended, and there they are making custom ductwork fittings to squeeze the ductwork closer up against the structure. Even my electrical panels aren't sacred - beating enough space out of an architect for the necessary equipment, in the necessary locations is yet another constant fight. I am given: triangular electrical rooms, electrical rooms shared with mechanical equipment that is sufficient to fill the room by itself, electrical rooms that have janitor mop sinks located directly above them on the next floor (while also being triangular), electrical rooms that don't have exterior doors (but where the owner doesn't want to pay for an exterior disconnect or shunt-trip switch) etc., etc. Putting panels into the Revit model, and then having to scoot them around, squeeze them into every nook and cranny, and then end up having to relocate them (if I can convince them to attach to the model in the first place), while meanwhile everyone else - including me 'coordinates' with the old locations - when all I (and anybody else) needs to know is that 'here is a plan view showing panels and necessary clearances' - and 'no, you can't put anything over the top of my panel'. Basically this grand 'coordination tool' means jack shit, because nobody gives a fuck about coordinating, and now they think they can just ignore the other disciplines because Revit will magically do their thinking for them. This leads to some pretty funny fucking conversations, where I will ask a question - they snort derisively and refer me to the Revit model (which I have already looked at), and then I get the enjoyment of pointing out that their Revit model is either incomplete, or totally wrong (then they get to backpedal and go 'uh... uh... yeah - that guy was supposed to... um... yeah'. In other words - get the Revit dick out of your eyesocket, and start doing your goddamned jobs people. This isn't necessarily an issue with the Revit software, but it does seem to be a problem with the environment that Revit nurtures and fosters.