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

361–370 of 387 posts

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#361

Post by jessaustin »

tacticus wrote: post #360
jessaustin wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've hired an architect at a "big" construction firm (they regularly manage multistory hospital construction) to design some "medium" buildings and remodels. When I visited his office to talk through some change orders (I'm thinking this was about three years ago?), it was all Windows shared folders and carefully constructed file names.

:O I wonder if they moved to different solutions when they started bringing in subbies? for a counter example. I'm currently getting a small house built and the near by land developers are mostly using the SAAS solution I worked at to manage the construction\design of each subdivision.

I've hired numerous subcontractors who don't use email. These guys require printed plans. Hell, the local fire inspectors require printed plans, even though they prefer not to fill out paper inspection reports.

People who haven't used change control have a hard time imagining what they're missing.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#362

Post by adfm »

aut0away wrote: post #2

It is a bit of a monopoly. I always respected people who used Rhino, while secretly thinking of them as needlessly contrarian. Now I just respect them. Besides the free Fusion 360 moat, Autodesk owns 3DS Max and Maya. Enough said.

cough t-splines cough

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#363

Post by tacticus »

jessaustin wrote: post #361
tacticus wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:O I wonder if they moved to different solutions when they started bringing in subbies? for a counter example. I'm currently getting a small house built and the near by land developers are mostly using the SAAS solution I worked at to manage the construction\design of each subdivision.

I've hired numerous subcontractors who don't use email. These guys require printed plans. Hell, the local fire inspectors require printed plans, even though they prefer not to fill out paper inspection reports. People who haven't used change control have a hard time imagining what they're missing.

Wow it's a substantially different experience with most that i've been across here.

Almost every subbie I've met even those building residential properties have a few mobile apps for doc management and so many ipads for plan review\access\defecting

The last plumber I worked with had the quote in my email with updated pricing and online billing before they got back to their ute.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#364

Post by esperent »

mcguire wrote: post #324
esperent wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was younger, I used to pirate expensive software that I couldn't afford. It's what got me into 3D graphics and graphic design at a young age. Now I'm older and using some of this software professionally, and usually, I'm more than happy to pay for it. But I'll never buy into Adobe's shady subscription model, or any other company that does this. When I pay for a software license, that version of the software sh…

The problem with this: updates. You buy a version. They fix the bugs you report and release a new version. Do you pay full price for it? No, it's just an update. You'll pay a reduced upgrade price, but you want it for free. Your price probably doesn't pay for ongoing upgrades and might not pay for the updates. So no one is paying for updates. Every new version has to be sufficiently improved to get everyone to buy a…

Photoshop is extremely stable software. Other than a couple of new features and UI changes, there's not much difference between Photoshop now and ten years ago.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#365

Post by quixoticaxolotl »

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"…

PlanGrid, my former employer and YC graduate, does in fact offer a version control for construction drawings. They offer the ability to export from Revit into PlanGrid.

PlanGrid was bought in 2018/2019 by Autodesk for 875 million, though, so good luck escaping the Autodesk family :D

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#366

Post by imgabe »

runxel wrote: post #328
imgabe wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The network effects are strong and it is a big hurdle. The problem is the software isn't just used by one team at one company. Architects hire subconsultants- MEP engineers, Structural Engineers, Civil Engineers, Landscape designers, Lighting designers, many others. They all need to share files so whatever you make has to be compatible with whatever everyone else is using (which is probably Revit). There are some com…

No wonder all the smaller AEC software firms out there are pushing OpenBIM very hard. If you think you need to convert an Archicad .pln into a Revit .rvt you're doing it wrong and essentially playing into the hands of Autodesk. We really need to stop with all that siloing going on. OpenBIM with IFC and BCF are the only way of going forward. Revit is a mediocre product in all categories, but that's the thing: People a…

Yeah, IFC is the format I had experience with trying to coordinate between ArchiCAD and Revit. There's probably a better way to do it than the way we did it at least at first, because initially Revit imports the IFC with everything as a generic "object" family instead of windows, doors, ceilings, etc. which make it impossible to configure views to show the correct things. There are probably settings in ArchiCAD that fix this when exporting, but it takes experienced people on both sides.

In the context of design projects that don't always have the most realistic schedule, it's just one additional hurdle to deal with that isn't there if everyone is using Revit.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#367

Post by beilabs »

tacticus wrote: post #363
jessaustin wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've hired numerous subcontractors who don't use email. These guys require printed plans. Hell, the local fire inspectors require printed plans, even though they prefer not to fill out paper inspection reports. People who haven't used change control have a hard time imagining what they're missing.

Wow it's a substantially different experience with most that i've been across here. Almost every subbie I've met even those building residential properties have a few mobile apps for doc management and so many ipads for plan review\access\defecting The last plumber I worked with had the quote in my email with updated pricing and online billing before they got back to their ute.

You're Australian I gather. We're far ahead of the curve.

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#368

Post by tacticus »

beilabs wrote: post #367
tacticus wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow it's a substantially different experience with most that i've been across here. Almost every subbie I've met even those building residential properties have a few mobile apps for doc management and so many ipads for plan review\access\defecting The last plumber I worked with had the quote in my email with updated pricing and online billing before they got back to their ute.

You're Australian I gather. We're far ahead of the curve.

That's a first.

:P

(and yarp.)

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#369

Post by dreamcompiler »

tomxor wrote: post #307
neutronicus wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a competitor in this space, and we make a living off of poaching AutoDesk customers. We're owned by a pretty deep-pocketed holding company as well, so I don't think we're going to get bought. IMO it's not just about "values of architects". They're a population that does cognitively demanding work (so polished UX is of fundamental importance) that tends to have more of a fine arts background than a software…

I get where you are coming from, but when I say FOSS i do not necessarily mean a "FOSS project"... I can imagine when it's very niche with a small user base, you probably do need closed source + for profit company developing it with a high per-license fee to produce anything of useful quality. What I am suggesting is _both_. The FOSS part is purely licensing, as an insurance policy for the users, and to make acquisit…

> I wonder if such a legal mechanism exists which automatically triggers FOSS licensing upon acquisition

I can't imagine a VC funding a company with a poison-pill clause like this. Such a clause would discourage acquisition, and don't most VCs (if not most founders) hope for acquisition as a very desirable exit strategy?

Re: Autodesk criticised by architects

#370

Post by cosmie »

syshum wrote: post #186
twelvechairs wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not just Autodesk, all big software shops tend towards low innovation. Look at Adobe, ESRI, even Microsoft office etc. Core products often haven't changed appreciably in 20 years - the business/money isn't in innovation, it is in having proprietary file formats that are industry standards and bundling big packages of software together that makes it hard to shift off the platform.

I agree, but to defend them somewhat long established products like MS Office suffer from 2 competing interests, people that want innovation and people that want stability For my core users any change at all to MS Office is met with frustration and huge amounts of backlash, even something as simple at changing the icon shading is a problem Many people are robotic when it comes to using these products, going through t…

> Many people are robotic when it comes to using these products,

Many people aren't just robotic, they're straight up ritualistic.

I've worked with several people that are absolute wizards at PowerPoint, love to get new features, and quickly integrate them into their workflows.

But those same people have absolutely no mental framework for how Excel works. They'll quite literally use a physical calculator (or their phone's calculator app) in tandem with Excel, treating Excel as a glorified text editor that lets you do cell-by-cell text placement/formatting. They have such a weak grasp of how Excel works that any tiny change whatsoever doesn't just cause extreme frustration, but also extreme anxiety as they scramble to re-establish the thin veneer of usability they previously held.

Having witnessed the above more than once, I've taken to heart the level of naivety that should be presumed when creating UX flows and documentation.

Post reply on HN