Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Autodesk criticised by architects

extranetevolution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 387 posts

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#161

Post by rjmunro »

slim wrote: post #131
pyb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everybody likes to hear it, but archive.is is an illegal operation. In some countries, posting archive.is links may even be illegal as well (it might be interpreted by a court as "Aiding and Abetting Criminal Copyright Infringement")

is it still illegal if it's the exact same page including ads (revenues go to the source) ?

It may or may not be illegal, but including the ads is unlikely to make any difference.

It's generally not thought to be illegal, see for example: https://www.practicalecommerce.com/Search-Engines-Indexing-a...

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#162

Post by CositaS »

bschne wrote: post #65
saeranv wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the firm, but it's definitely used. Specifically Rhino/Grasshopper get used a lot for concept, schematic design, and then Revit gets used for design development and onward, especially at companies that work a lot with complex geometry (Zaha, SHoP).

That makes sense, I have no clue about how architects actually work but I imagine Revit et al. have a ton of features that you would probably miss in Rhino when it gets to working out the nitty-gritty details of floorplans, generating section drawings, or working with BIM features?

https://www.visualarq.com/ adds BIM tools to Rhino (and the total price of perpetual licenses for Rhino+VisualARQ is still significantly less than a year's Revit subscription)

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#163

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

darkwater wrote: post #91
imgabe wrote: post #5

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X"…

Some users implement version control using the NTFS/Windows file history feature on shared drives where the projects are saved.

This has saved my hide a few times, on the occasion I remember to think of it.

Such an underrated / understated feature.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#164

Post by mihaaly »

ur-whale wrote: post #64
poseva wrote: post #50

As an structural engineer and former Autodesk user, I completely agree with the letter. I always saw Autodesk as a company where software goes to die a slowly painful death. It started with Autodesk Structural Detaling. They bought the software from a small company, renamed the product... and that was it. It had the same bugs release after release... we as customers tried our best to report the bugs, but nobody liste…

> Have a bright future together Until they get bought by AutoDesk

I believe it has the chance like Google buys Apple or vice versa, the Nemetschek consortium and Autodesk's AEC line are direct competitors.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#165

Post by polote »

jasode wrote: post #145
Hokusai wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast that I would be flying in a hired private jet to some island free of the pandemic by next morning. The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: If I have 1 chance in 1,000 to get 10 billion,…

>If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast [...] The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: [...] The part missing from your hypothetical scenario is that founders have egos and many would rather keep ownership of their company and don't want to work for someone else . (I made prev…

It is always the same thing "If I were X" people only imagine that X wouldn't bring them anything, so having $50M is better than having nothing.

Well as you said, no, is it better to have a company valued $50M growing 30% per year, or having $50M in your bank account ? Most entrepreneur will prefer the latter

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#166

Post by jasode »

thinkloop wrote: post #159
jasode wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I was able to build such a software that has potential on stealing Autodesk software. And Autodesk showed at my door with $50,000,000 in cash. I would sell it so fast [...] The rational is simple. I will make up some numbers: [...] The part missing from your hypothetical scenario is that founders have egos and many would rather keep ownership of their company and don't want to work for someone else . (I made prev…

> Yahoo made offers to buy Google I think you have that backwards, Google kept asking Yahoo to buy them [1] [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/remember-yahoo-turned-down-1-...

>I think you have that backwards, Google kept asking Yahoo to buy them

The early 1998 $1 million offer was prompted by Larry Page and Yahoo rejected him. However, the 2002 offer of $3 billion was from Yahoo and Google rejected them. In 2002, Google was already starting to see profits so they were under no pressure to sell.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#167

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

imgabe wrote: post #5

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X"…

> I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries.

It happens in all industries. For example InDesign currently has a dominant position as a DTP tool. However, after so many years it still doesn't support many basic functions such as multiple indexes (Index of People, Index of Places, etc.). Adobe simply doesn't care because there is no competition (Affinity Publisher is not there yet, and Scribus has its own quirks, although got much better recently; paradoxically Quark finally got competitive, but they don't support multiple indexes either...).

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#168

Post by adventured »

david_draco wrote: post #119
taneq wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I want to pay a one off price for a stable and feature complete tool. I don’t want to fund a bunch of developers noodling around with new features I don’t want, or fixing bugs they should be patching anyway, as part of the original price of the software. Of course you do. So do I! However, the bunch of developers wants you to fund them noodling around indefinitely, and sadly they're the ones that choose the busines…

> If only FreeCAD had a UI as approachable as Fusion 360... You could pay a random professional software company to improve the FreeCAD UI.

> You could pay a random professional software company to improve the FreeCAD UI.

Software develoment is of course quite difficult. Good software development is that much harder. Sure, you could pay a company to try to improve the FreeCAD UI - you could pay a company a lot of money to botch the effort, deliver a mediocre outcome, take a zillion years to finish, go far over budget it while still getting a mediocre outcome, and so on. If it's anything other than a good outcome, most likely you just stole resources from the rest of your business and now you're worse off. The odds are against you.

It's one of the many reasons people stick with their 75% or 85% good enough present solution. They're busy running their own business. Trying to manage a software development endeavor on the side is a huge tax (that much more so if you're not in the software business).

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#169

Post by tacticus »

jalk wrote: post #80
imgabe wrote: post #5

There's easily a multi-billion dollar opportunity for anyone who can unseat Autodesk from the building design industry. Revit is the standard, and while it's improved a lot over the years it's still so ridiculously far from where it could be. I don't think people in software realize how incredibly far behind software tooling is in other industries. Take an idea like "version control for X" or "package manager for X"…

Was looking into creating some tooling for the construction industry perhaps 15 years ago as drawings were send over emails with all the version nightmares that creates. Some Danish government agency had a ‘Digital Construction’ project going on so I initially thought I was too late. After a couple of years all they had amounted to was creating a ton of convoluted documents defining common CAD drawing layers. I’ve si…

There are a fair few doc management for construction companies around now. So i'd be surprised if any large project wasn't using a managed or self hosted one today. and several of them have fancy tools that can pull in 3d models and the like. (oracle bought one that i worked at)

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#170

Post by thinkloop »

jasode wrote: post #166
thinkloop wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yahoo made offers to buy Google I think you have that backwards, Google kept asking Yahoo to buy them [1] [1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/remember-yahoo-turned-down-1-...

>I think you have that backwards, Google kept asking Yahoo to buy them The early 1998 $1 million offer was prompted by Larry Page and Yahoo rejected him. However, the 2002 offer of $3 billion was from Yahoo and Google rejected them. In 2002, Google was already starting to see profits so they were under no pressure to sell.

You're right:

"In 2002, Yahoo's CEO at the time, Terry Semel, engaged in negotiations to acquire Google, which lasted several months.

The outcome of the negotiation was Semel balking at Google's price tag of $5 billion."

Post reply on HN