Over the past 3 or 4 months, I’ve spent my time working with the plumbing department on a large project using Revit. Incidentally, I hear the same complaints about Revit as I do about civil 3d.
But what often comes up is that while each application has reached a certain stability and functionality, they may not work or function as we expect. Often times, I’ll hear a comment like “thank goodness the steering wheel in my car knows what to do when I turn it to the right…” or “would you buy a car with no rear wheels?”
Those comments are often in response to some aspect in the software that doesn’t do what it should or is missing what we deem a typical “part of the model.” So, I usually reply with something to effect that we have to take that blank car and customize it to how we work, kind of like trucks for instance. Mack trucks make the cab and frame and then supply them to many types of users who put all sorts of equipment on the back for their use.
But, then thinking to myself, is design software really to that point? I think in some industries that may be the case, like auto manufacturing. But in the AEC world, design software still has a bit of boutique feel. Why do I think this? Primarily 2 things. First, the user base of Revit or Civil 3D is actually quite small compared to something like Photoshop. That would explain the price difference . Second, because the funding of development is limited, design software often requires users to develop their own processes to generate a final product. Think of the software used on the shuttle. I can only imagine that those apps are probably built from scratch or re-use & tweaking of existing modules to define a certain measurement or experiment in space.
So, are our expectations out of whack with reality? It seems so in this case. More so to the point, do we have an expectation in today’s workforce that every tool should function like a commodity? Even MS Word needs a custom template for your office right? Unless, of course, your company name really is Northwind Traders.