>>997929
You mean shit.

>>997930
No, I mean torture. The program is incredible for architecture.
But learning this shit is a massive headache.

>>997932
What troubles you?

>>997929
god i hate Revit so much.
It tries so hard to be all-encompassing that it turns everything it touches into shit

it can do energy modeling in theory, but wont because the architects never model it right

I FUCKING HATE REVIT

>>997952
If I give you a wall assembly and a thickness, can you give me an R value for a wall?

>>997955
i can do anything if i set my mind to it

>>997959
So what do i need to do to "model it right"?

Indeed

How mucch muney is that

yes

>>997963
idk what the revit requirements are arch-anon,
all i know is revits load modeling software doent work correctly due to the modeling practices of a lot of architects

whether thats architects fault or revits, is rly irrelevant to me, because it doesnt work so I have to hire a bunch of indians to do data entry into my load modeling software

>>998687
>all i know is revits load modeling software doent work correctly due to the modeling practices of a lot of architects
From experience, you are correct; most architects can't be bothered with learning any of the many thousands of intricacies of Revit. To them, they only know how to make hollow shells of generic walls types and face paint. I've seen it. I hate it.

But i'm not going to use autocad and get perpetually fucked over by things like the city wanting unit counts, average grade calculations, and topography visualization.

>>998710
Revit is way "better", with some UX improvements and QOL changes it can be way better than autoCAD.

CAD is an idiosyncratic piece of shit too, but easier for my work as an MEP guy.

Certain problems you encounter in Revit are no-brainer fixes, others are extremely unintuitive or impossible.
Its hard to even list specific problems because they're all hyper specific.

>>998714
>CAD is an idiosyncratic piece of shit too, but easier for my work as an MEP guy.
I will grant you that. For simpler (relative) stuff that doesnt need 3d modeling, autocad will serve you just fine.

You want to coordinate your RTU with structural's truss layout and where you can and can't cut certain pre-cast panels, we'd have to go to revit.

>others are extremely unintuitive or impossible.
And this is why revit is a hard sell for engineers; workarounds for things that revit otherwise does very well.

Plumbing in revit is a shit show and doesn't make sense to me when all the elbow joints break, but I can design, fire rate, and thermally match a wall better than autocad could ever do, even in 3d autocad.

>>998714
>>998841
the scope of revit is too large, and thats why it fails