The Key Differences Between Revit and ArchiCAD from an Architectural Perspective
1. Families and Types: This concept can be confusing for ArchiCAD users. In Revit, a “family” is roughly equivalent to a parameterized object or GDL in ArchiCAD, which is straightforward. However, the idea of a “type” within a family is more complex. A type categorizes elements within a family based on shared parameters. For example, in a wall family, “200 walls” and “300 walls” represent different types. To change a wall from 200 to 300, you must change its type.
In ArchiCAD, this process is simpler—you can directly change the parameter value, such as wall thickness, in the parameter bar. For instance, if you want to create text with a height of 5 units, ArchiCAD lets you set this directly. Revit, on the other hand, requires you to first create a “Text Height 5” type and use that. Changing the height to 6 means you can’t simply edit the existing type; you must create a new “Text Height 6” type. This means that in Revit, every element needs an appropriate “container” or type, and if none exists, you have to create one. ArchiCAD treats it more like a large container where elements are freely placed. This difference affects user experience and computing speed—Revit users often find this cumbersome and refer to it as “stupid.”
2. Dimension Locking and Driving: One of Revit’s major strengths is the ability to lock components into relative positions. For example, you can lock the distance between two walls in a hallway at 1.2 meters, ensuring it never changes to 1.1 meters. Revit also supports dimension driving, where selecting a wall shows its length, and you can directly edit it to resize the wall instantly. This feature is integral to Revit family creation. For example, attaching a family element like a water collection well to a floor slab and locking it ensures it stays aligned and doesn’t float.
However, this feature places a heavy computational load on the software. Every selection triggers position recalculations relative to surrounding elements, slowing performance—imagine constantly analyzing a beautiful woman’s measurements and connections to her circle. Unless you have a fast CPU, the experience can be sluggish.
ArchiCAD lacks these exact features but offers partial dimension-driven editing by clicking hotspots to modify sizes, depending on component type. The absence of locking and dimension driving maintains ArchiCAD’s speed advantage, which many users appreciate.
3. Layers: ArchiCAD’s layer system closely resembles AutoCAD’s, allowing AutoCAD users to transition quickly, although layers in ArchiCAD are not tied to colors, which can take some getting used to. ArchiCAD also adds a unique “Intersection Group Number” layer tag to control component connections—a smart but somewhat complex feature for beginners.
Revit, by contrast, does not use traditional layers. Autodesk might have moved away from layers to distance Revit from AutoCAD or because they viewed layers as outdated. Instead, Revit uses multiple complex classifications such as “Element Visibility,” “Object Styles,” and “Filters” to manage visibility and organization.
This approach can be confusing for new users. Managing visibility for elements like ducts or beams often requires navigating through numerous settings per floor. Additionally, exporting to DWG format is less flexible without layers—distinguishing between interior and exterior walls or different door types is more difficult compared to ArchiCAD.
Autodesk often claims Revit and AutoCAD are closely integrated, but users who have experience with ArchiCAD know that this integration comes with compromises.
4. Multi-Window Support: Revit supports displaying multiple windows simultaneously, enabling users to view vertical and 3D perspectives of the same area side by side—a clear advantage. However, transitioning quickly between floor plans or elevations could be improved, and this feature consumes significant system resources.
ArchiCAD offers what might be called “pseudo multiple windows.” Not all windows update instantly, but its fast switching ability compensates for this. For example, opening a partial 3D view in ArchiCAD is quick and efficient, while Revit’s 3D views are global and can be less flexible when you want to focus on local details.
5. Real-Time Computation: Almost every operation in Revit happens in real time, which ties into its multi-window capabilities. For example, adjusting a view’s crop region involves multiple steps and progress bars for each edge you adjust. Every minor mouse movement triggers a regeneration, which can feel excessive and time-consuming.
If you want to include a partial 3D axonometric view in your layout, you need to adjust up to 10 boundaries, each triggering its own progress bar. This constant recalculation taxes your CPU heavily. Revit behaves like a hardworking but slow ox, always running the processor, and while not lazy, it can feel “stupid” in terms of efficiency.
ArchiCAD takes a different approach, allowing many tools to work without real-time updates. It uses temporary storage and selective updates for vertical sections, large sample tools, and layout tools. This makes ArchiCAD more agile and capable of handling large projects smoothly—even on modest hardware.
For example, I can create tens of thousands of square meters of construction drawings on a dual-core laptop with 2GB of RAM using ArchiCAD, but I have experienced crashes using Revit on a quad-core desktop with 4GB of RAM. It’s not the machine that crashes—it’s the software demanding more resources.
To work effectively in Revit, you typically need a quad-core CPU running at 3GHz or higher, at least 8GB of RAM, and dual 24-inch monitors—one for drawing and one for browsing the web while waiting for progress bars to finish. Autodesk is aware of these challenges; as one expert noted, it’s not a lack of coding skill but rather the lack of opportunity to optimize the software as the BIM empire expands.
Must log in before commenting!
Sign Up