My viewpoint was that if the “light” version of ARCHICAD had the same modeling power as the full version, then it was a good place for people to start if the cost was an issue. You won’t even know what you’re missing…at first”. Therefore since 2013, I’ve felt comfortable telling people I meet “hey, if you are nervous about the upfront investment cost of ARCHICAD, go with STAR(T). So this model would be easy (sorry, “easy”) to do in ARCHICAD STAR(T) 2013. The modeling capabilities of ARCHICAD 15 were on par with ARCHICAD STAR(T) 2013, except the latter software, also had the Morph tool. I modeled this house in 2011 using ARCHICAD 15. In subsequent versions of ARCHICAD, we’ve acquired even better methods of modeling, but I knew by the end of this model I had gone from asking “is it possible?” to “how easy is it going to be?” Geometry was no longer a limitation in my work. By the time I finished modeling everything from the stained glass window to the wrought-iron spire, I realized I could model anything in ARCHICAD that I wanted to-and this was before the Morph Tool and without taking advantage of the Shell Tool, even though it existed. The geometric complexity of the house in the image above rivals anything else I’ve ever had to do in ARCHICAD. It’s kind of ironic that after I had stepped away from sales, I was finally ready to promote the other version of ARCHICAD. STAR(T) was an entry point to ARCHICAD, but it lacked a few key features-particularly Complex Profile support-that were deal breakers to me. And that meant I was always thinking more about workflow than almost anything else. I enjoyed being the rep, but I was always a user first. When I was the local GRAPHISOFT agent for Minnesota (2010 to 2013), I would tell people about STAR(T) and then say “you don’t want it.” It wasn’t a bait and switch trick to up sell people. For a long time, it was ALMOST very good. We’ve had a “light” version of ARCHICAD since 2006 (though technically there was also a German and Swiss version in 2005). STAR(T) has evolved a lot over the past decade, and its strengths help highlight the subtle differences between these two versions of ARCHICAD.
And the most interesting way to explain that is to go back in time, and first talk about the difference between what STAR(T) was and now is (for those markets where it still exists). Why am I so excited for Solo in the North American Market? To do that we need to look at the differences between STAR(T) and Solo. In our market, ARCHICAD Solo replaces ARCHICAD STAR(T), and this makes me very happy.
#CHIEF ARCHITECT VS ARCHICAD SOFTWARE#
We want a software that will work for us now and into the future as we grow.Back in January 2016, GRAPHISOFT introduced ARCHICAD 19 Solo to the North American market. I'd be fine going with CA but generally like Autodesk products and would choose Revit if there's more to gain there.Īs I mentioned we're small now but hope on growing. We're just at the beginning of design/drafting so are flexible on which way to go at this stage.
I've been tasked with choosing a BIM program for us to use. We've identified a need to have in-house design. We are a small construction company who do a wide range of jobs from residential remodels, commercial TIs, and our first ground-up later this year which is a multi-building multifamily project. I'm sure much of what was stated no longer applies as both of these software have undoubtedly come a long way in the last few years. Most of my web searching brings up old posts from sevaral years ago, and most of those on either on the Autodesk or CA fourms. I'm looking for up-to-date comparisons of Revit vs CA.
Instead of necroposting on an earlier version of this subject I though I'd try to get a fresh take.
0 kommentar(er)
