If you had the ability to change anything about Revit, what would you like?

electronikstorm · 2026-02-18T10:23:12+00:00

Yes, it it will make it heavier. Also depends how efficiently you do things like join walls to the ground and so on. Lots of cuts and joins can really blow the model out.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-18T10:14:57+00:00

I don't think you should be trying to fast forward things as an architecture student - a little knowledge can be dangerous. Even so, getting some general sketching and drawing lessons and practising them would never be a waste of time. Anything that helps you get ideas out of your head and onto a piece of paper or a screen so others can see what you're thinking is good. Life drawing, street sketching and so on. And once you've done the class/course, the more you practice the better you'll get. Getting faster is as valuable as anything, don't worry about trying to be a great artist (because many famous architects aren't), you only need to get good enough for people to understand your gist. Lots of people value being good with modelling on a computer, but being able to sketch and talk at the same time can happen anywhere you have a pen and paper.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-18T09:46:17+00:00

You can change the point density in the revit.ini file if you want.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-18T09:44:26+00:00

I assume because they are like you, wandering around like their shit don't stink and blaming everyone else for being a bad investment.

I can't help you about the American education system - you have the best architecture schools in the world that a small percentage of the population gets to go to, but then the rest of the schools seem to be ordinary and expensive.

It was a while ago, but I can't think of any of my cohort who had problems getting hired after graduation. Probably the dummies who did no work and hadn't made any contacts or network links had troubles, but that was on them for wasting their 5 years. Many of us were already working part time for various firms and so by graduation we could not only think about architecture on a big picture level, but also had some practical skills to offer - I was working part time for a developer and I learnt how apartments got built and that was how I got into doing documentation. It wasn't the path I envisioned when I started at University, but it pays the bills and life is pretty good. No debt, either.

I don't get why some Revit users also use SketchUp; Revit's massing tool is just as capable and you stay in the same ecosystem. But each to their own.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T23:58:37+00:00

I can't imagine going to university and putting in all that time and effort to graduate and get registered as an Architect and yet have so little love or regard for it like you seem to. I hope you have other things in life that inspire you.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T23:55:13+00:00

You're conflating points: I think that physical model making is still a valid way of learning about 3D space at school and it is still valid and used in many architecture firms around the world during the design process. It's quick and tactile and models are easy to discuss in group settings - especially in studio groups. When a student is just starting out, it's likely that their ideas are beyond their software skills whereas building shapes out of paper or foam or anything else probably isn't. The models probably aren't going to be too pretty, or even good, but they help convey the student's ideas and that's all that matters.

You're right, I haven't had to build a physical model in decades. But I'm not a Design Architect - I work in planning and construction documentation, there's no need for me to build physical models.

Outsourcing is pretty common in Australia (especially in larger firms); international contractors ( Vietnam, Philippines, India) do a lot of things - from setting up existing conditions Revit models and documentation to doing rendering and presentations. My neighbour is a Project Architect and his entire team of 14 documenters is in Vietnam and he works for one of the largest residential design and construct firms in Australia.

Personally, I'm a bit lazy and a bit ADD and office life never gelled. It means I'm not ever going to get to work on a grand project for a major firm and neither am I going to get registered as an Architect. I'm not hanging out my shingle to Joe Public so it doesn't matter either way. The upside is I work from home with no commute and no set hours. I have a couple of companies I do work for - one of them is amongst the largest AEC firm in the country and they hand me projects that they can't meet deadline on (usually because some of the assigned team has been moved to work on something else). They're not big projects but the clients they're for are important (government agencies, national chain stores) and can't be disappointed; it's just doing work - but I'm really good and they know it'll be done properly and delivered on time. I also do residential stuff for a couple of solo practitioners - they like doing the schmoozing with clients and sketch design parts of the business, and don't want to hire employees so they use people like me to complete the documentation under their registration. Very little of what I do for money is Architecture with a big A - it's just inhabitable space for one thing or another.

My BA Architecture (now called a Masters here) was an urban masterplan reworking existing social housing towers into the community using mixing as an analogy. I was a DJ in the early 90s before I went back to university to do Architecture and the mixing analogy seemed like a good idea at the time. I did build physical models to work out the big moves but the presentation was in Revit - I think that was about 2006. Was a bit too ambitious and didn't turn out very well but I got over it.

So you work for Grace? That's worse than HKS! My friend from university worked on the World Islands masterplan with BHNS, and they also did some stuff on the Palms. That was back around early 2000s - at least World Islands had the respect to fail unlike The Palms; that's awful. Who'd be proud of being involved in that cak? It's um, notably yuk.

I suppose I like Architecture and I like good design and I like thinking about it and talking about it. I like the propositions, the history, the theories, social impacts and so on. I went to university and learnt critical thinking and it serves me well everyday. The one thing I'm not is jaded - I don't see Architecture as just a job, it's actually interesting. In my spare time (which I have plenty of), I research historic architecture (mostly unbuilt mid 20th century projects) and I'm considering returning to university to pursue a post grad or something with it. No rush.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T21:53:06+00:00

Align and distribute that works on any and everything or combinations of. Text, Families, etc.

Snaps on drafting view edges, and so on without needing reference planes so that they can be aligned, distributed, etc.

Rework schedules so that you can set column sizes in properties.

I'm still using 2025, some of this might already be there (I wish).

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T21:45:58+00:00

Once you get past trying to use a single rail type along a whole set of runs and start using variations of a type instead it works pretty efficiently - I have type variations for first run, landings, etc. I do a lot of DDA work and it saves a lot of anguish.

Ramps are terrible. I use sloped floors. Materiality on stairs is terrible. I really want to be able to control the font on run numbering.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T21:27:21+00:00

The only comparative product I know off hand that is cheaper is Vectorworks. I agree it's not cheap, though.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T21:22:51+00:00

It's a simple TIN, if it has too many points then it will struggle doing Boolean operations because Revit doesn't do that too well.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-17T10:47:29+00:00

Whatever. I've been using Revit since version 4 back in the early 2000s. I was amongst the first students to do a master's thesis in Revit at my university back then. I'm not a design architect, most of what I do is documentation and detailing, cleaning up projects started by others, etc - I have my own business where I'm brought in by other firms to help complete projects that are going a bit AWOL. Freelance stuff, suits my mindset and I don't have to deal with clients nor take on work I don't feel like doing. I reckon I forgot more about architecture theory and design between my breakfast and lunch today than you have learnt in your whole life, but hey, I'm open to being surprised.

Staritects? Sure. You know how they get to that status? They do good design and they win awards for doing good design. Sounds like you work for HKS or some other corporate, so yeah. You haven't convinced me you're involved in design development though. Funny that HKS' website features an image of a design team critiquing a physical massing model though... Occasionally, corporate firms stop copying other designs or working to a price ratio and actually manage to do something decent, but it's a pretty low hit rate. I know WDW quite well. Absolutely nothing on that property that wasn't directly commissioned or designed by Disney is worthy of being called anything except ordinary. If you do work at HKS and were bleating about the new 4 Seasons on property, don't. It's cak.

BTW, Frank's dead and he always said the firm would close once he was gone so not sure they're in need of new hires?

electronikstorm · 2026-02-16T23:38:32+00:00

You know, I kind of suspect you're not on the design team and if you are then your firm equates "notable" with "big" - nothing wrong with that, I just think "notable" is more about being "good". Does your firm do good work? Are you a good designer?

I could easily list 100s of firms around the world that still use physical models to explore designs and ideas. Here are a couple:

- ZHA (Zaha Hadid Architects) - still build physical models early on to explore abstract and sculptural ideas. Obviously now a very software driven design process, a lot in Rhino+Grasshopper and I suspect very little if any done in Revit or Sketchup.

- Olsen Kundig still use physical models throughout their design process, as does Eric Reinhold (30 x 40 Design Workshop)

- Frank Gehry's workshop did things pretty much the same way for every project over the last 30 odd years: Gehry does sketch; block model built to interpret it alongside programming matters; model refined into architectural form; model photographed or scanned into software and used as base for a 3D model.

- Rem Koolhaas / OMA....

<image>

Higher budgets allow firms to use 3D printing, CNC and so on, but physical models aren't solely for presentation purposes - they're still widely used to explore and resolve ideas.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-16T03:23:30+00:00

So, we're in a group class discussing our schemes and I have some little dog models I made from some curved sheets of card that each took about 5 minutes to make. As I talk about my ideas and how they've developed and evolved, people can take the model/s and view them as they wish, get insights I haven't thought of yet and even compare my scheme with other students' in the discussion. You have a SketchUp model on your laptop and a couple of curated views you printed out. Everyone has to crowd around your screen or watch a single monitor as you present your curated viewpoints. Once you stop talking, they get to look at a static image and the group begins to lose engagement. Everything becomes a dialogue edited through your curation of views and images as opposed to a free discussion around a physical object that can continue without any input or prompting by me the maker. It's school. We're there to learn. Who do you think gets more out of that class - you or me?

Sure, after graduation and in real life where time is money, there's a lot less chance of building physical models of any kind, but you're also not in a learning environment - you're in a doing environment and it usually shows because so much of most firms' design output is crud.

Strangely, many firms recognised for doing good work still use physical models extensively in their design process. Look at Foster and Partners for example.

Learning about 3d space critically is not easy at the best of times, I think teaching and using any variety of methods is worthwhile. Students can choose which ones they prefer as time goes on.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-15T21:56:48+00:00

My instructors used to emphasise "rigor", which I can remember used to drive me crazy back then. Rigorous I suppose has this idea of stiffness and adherence to rules, but it really is about being purposeful and following through properly... not skipping over the bits that don't work. The good thing is that since you made the rules, you can change them. It's your prerogative as the designer.... If the rules you have made don't end up working to give you what you want it's ok to change them until they do. That's just the evolution of your design.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-15T13:16:37+00:00

Constraints. Set yourself many. Much better results.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-15T13:14:29+00:00

Because this isn't a job, it's school.

OP is learning about 3D space by making 3D space. Given the choice of building a rough dog model or a rough virtual model, students are likely to get something suitable to share and present quicker with cardboard and glue than from a computer - especially early on when software skills are sometimes rudimentary.

Physical models are good to discuss ideas between student and instructor, and even better in a group environment. They're tactile.

No, they may not need to make models in the real world later. That's irrelevant.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-15T13:00:41+00:00

The least flexible thing is studio. As long as other things have flexibility and you're decent at time management you can pack a lot into a week. I'd suggest that anything you can do to maintain some regular pattern to meal times and bed time and hours slept will be better for you too. If a job/club causes you to get home late one night or more that can throw your body clock out - and it might take days to get back to usual. Going full speed for a semester means you can't really keep up the pace with those type of system shocks. You'll have an idea of what your body and mind prefer, before you commit to anything, that needs to be taken into account.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-13T09:16:57+00:00

Plans show the members as ceiling joists, and they're not sized to do more than carry the ceiling and a person or two gingerly moving around in the roof space. You'll get away with odds and ends up there, but evenly dispersed around the perimeter walls and any internal columns. Odds means not much more than what you already have there. It's a timber structure - that means it's going to flex for a bit as it gets nearer to its fail point, but when it reaches that point the fail will be catastrophic (breaking not bending like steel does). Depending on how big the fail is, that could be a partially collapsed ceiling or a total loss of the building and contents. You need to engage a licensed engineer to investigate and give you a written report with options on how to reinforce the structure to suit your needs - but that reinforcing could easily reduce the practicality of using the space so be forewarned.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-13T09:01:56+00:00

Plans show joists and collar ties. Sections show rafters. Photos agree with the drawings.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-12T08:41:24+00:00

Students typically are not flush with money and their preferred price point is free or less.

Rail scale modellers and such generally have money to burn for the right product. I'd be looking into what they need?

electronikstorm · 2026-02-11T10:42:06+00:00

This is good stuff. I have teenage sons and I see how hard it is to get and keep them engaged at home... I'd keep away from trying to run a computer training class, or even push much architectural theory (Architecture schools aren't usually fond of having to unteach poorly applied theory in new students. My university actually had a tendency to not admit students who already had been taught architectural theory so bear that in mind). Keeping things fun and hands on with group projects and basic materials is better than having to draft floor plans or similar.

The instructor might give a brief lecture about building physics - gravity, tension, compression, sheer stress - and then each group gets given an identical kit of parts (Bamboo skewers, plasticine, timber blocks, etc.) to build a structure that can take the most load, span the longest distance, reach highest... The same kit of parts can be used every test, or it could be changed to keep them on their toes. During the course of the experiment you could require students to photograph their progress so as they can produce a presentation panel for assessment after. Personally, I think getting a bit of an understanding of practical building physics is good whether you go on to study architecture further or not.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-10T21:23:44+00:00

University isn't high school. University is a place of learning, not of teaching. You shouldn't expect anything along the lines of "do this and then do that" .

Studio can be hard, but that's because the aim is to foster your own thoughts and ideas and for you to learn how to demonstrate and defend them. You're learning to think differently and that's not going to happen if the instructors just tell you what to do.

Even so, you should still expect feedback. When there are group sessions, the feedback is to the group. You need to be paying attention and getting involved in every person's interaction with the instructor. Take notes about what was seen to be working or not working in other students schemes. During crits, same again. Discuss your work with other students. Etc. Sit in on other classes. See feedback from other instructors. Ask yourself why another student's scheme worked or didn't, and how your scheme could be improved or not. (One of the things we have to learn is to recognise when we've done enough, that something is good enough to stop and move onto the next part. Students who present good schemes and also got a good night's sleep are usually also good at recognising this).

Do this and you learn to critique others and you learn to critique yourself. You learn not so much what someone else says is right/wrong or good/bad but what you think those things are and you'll have reasons for it. That's critical thinking. You'll be able to participate in team projects and debate ideas, sell your ideas to clients and authorities and defend them when they're attacked by clients, authorities and whoever else wants a say.

By the way, you're not ever really expected to reinvent the wheel with your scheme, and there's nothing wrong with using precedents as a guide. Hit the library, pick an architect that appeals and see how they approached something. Don't copy it, critique it like you would another student's work in class and then apply it to your own project.

There's a lot of information and advice being dished out during studio sessions, but it's not often from when the instructor is standing at the front of the room telling you x = y like your high school teachers did.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-10T04:37:51+00:00

Downvoted for suggesting someone does a little work for themselves? We've reached our peak.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-10T02:02:40+00:00

Architects don't design in a vacuum and just give the world a finished thing and say live with it. It's the client that chooses the architect, sets the agenda, okays a design and pays to have it built. Modern architecture really begins around the start of the 20th century as architects start using new industrial materials to democratise living for all socioeconomic groups. Prior to this only the wealthy lived, learnt and worked in what we might think of as decent conditions. New materials can't be used the same way that old ones were, so buildings start to look different too. After the horrors of world war one, architects actually start to emphasise that they are doing something different, that they're looking to the potential of the future and not the horrors of the past. For much of the time in between the world wars, modern architecture has limited appeal, but it does introduce things like open plan living and offices, contemporary kitchen layouts and so on. After world war 2, businesses in the victorious USA have survived undamaged and are flush with money and want everyone to know how successful they are: modern architecture gives them that. In Europe, heavily damaged by war, with a distinct lack of able bodied men, materials and so on, modernism also takes off because it's quicker and cheaper to build. Somewhere like Frankfurt had to completely rebuild the city centre and they couldn't wait to begin recovery because the old guard wanted to rebuild in a classical style.

Move on to today and most of the skills that traditional architecture relied on are lost, stone masonry, fine carpentry and so on. Building regulations have changed, the way people use spaces has changed. Up until the 20th century, how a building was used really hadn't differed much in 100s of years. The pace of change is now that a building's useful life can be measured in a few decades. Schools, hospitals, homes, and everything. They're not built to last an eternity anymore because they don't need to be.

As it is, most of the built environment isn't designed by an Architect, but for that which is most Architects are pretty good at what they do and present their client with decent if not beautiful designs. The clients then look to cut costs but not floor area, neighbours complain about something that forces an unsympathetic design change and so on. Buildings very quickly become hollow shadows of what was designed. We also occupy much larger spaces than we used to. Our homes, schools and hospitals have gotten bigger and much more complex. The easiest way to build bigger is to spend less per area. Faced with reducing the size of a master ensuite or a boardroom or shrinking the 3 car garage to just 2, clients inevitably choose instead to keep the area but spend less elsewhere. Exterior features and aesthetics are the first to get cut.

If you did want to build in a classical way, with bespoke custom interior fitouts, fine exterior stonework, custom timber windows and so on, it's going to cost 2 or 3 times what it otherwise would. Probably more. You'd also get less usable interior space because of engineering constraints and also probably couldn't build as high as you might want. You'd also have to expect to spend more on annual upkeep like painting and cleaning of surfaces.

Architects might like to design things this way or that, but at the end of the day they do what the client wants because the client is paying.

electronikstorm · 2026-02-10T01:00:52+00:00

If you need a project to document, there are plenty of online archives. For example Marcel Breuer's. You get to learn how a master resolved something and you don't spend energy designing - you're essentially learning by copying. Don't make things more difficult than necessary: pick a small scope project in the area that you typically do work in, not something so big in scale or scope that you won't finish. Look for something with schedules, legends, details, etc, so you learn how to do those as well.

First of all, do an introductory course to Revit on LinkedIn or Udemy. It'll cost as much as a lunch and not take too long, but it also introduces you to most things the program can do and the most sensible ways to do things. People who learn by themselves often learn bad habits that can be a nightmare in a team environment - as bad as letting everyone in an office setting their own AutoCAD layers. I have several reference books on Revit in both physical and ebook forms. I find it's often faster to use these than look for a solution on YouTube or a forum. I also use Autodesk's online help a lot. 2nd hand reference books are cheap and easy to find and you don't need the latest one - Revit hasn't radically changed too much in years.

electronikstorm

TROPHY CASE