Autodesk has been very successful by most measures, i’m sure there’s been lots of patting on the backs and 7 figure stock options exercised.
Anyone seeking honest value out of their products and a true partner would say otherwise.
If you charted on how much i enjoy what McNeel has produced and how they do business it would be on the same trajectory.
I really hope BIM in grasshopper picks up in industry. It’s just such a different way of doing things. We are already trying some things which would never be possible in Revit or even Tekla.
And I am not super surprised that there is lack of innovation. Usually happens with industry incumbents that grow to such sizes and are unable to make quick decisions due to the size of the organization and hierarchy
Together with VisualArq, Rhino makes a nice BIM package, and definitely the most cost effective one. Yet Revit is still much more feature rich. No wonder, AD ist a giant.
What is Rhino’s weak spot, when used for architecture anyway, is everything related to plan graphics/layouts/details. Revit has this super powerful viewport templates to define very granular and precisely what a viewport should display. No way around this when producing complex 2d plans. This is a big topic, and there are many things involved - which have been discussed elsewhere. For my part, this is the area where I’d like to see progress here the most.
I’m aware that Rhino is a general purpose 3d application, not just architecture . But even so, producing plans is needed almost everywhere. Also, doing graphic design (Illustrator-like) besides plans is also very desirable. All this is within reach, I’d like to believe.
There are some attractive things about Revit, now that Rhino is Inside.
If you consider what a plan, elevation, section and detail actually are it isn’t too much of a stretch to generate a more data driven custom workflow in Rhino/GH that is far superior to Revit – which many have done, but kept proprietary.
We need more open source workflows, like Front has provided in elefront. Too many companies clamp down on innovations in an effort to gain an edge, which slows things down. I’m a proponent of open source everything, and will gladly share anything i learn to push things forward.
The use of 2D plans varies by industry. My understanding is 2D plans which can be printed are almost universal in architecture and construction of buildings. The use of 2D plans in the auto industry, at least at the the very large auto manufacturer I worked for, essentially vanished close to twenty years go. All designs were communicated with 3D digital data.
Ok, true. In architecture, the good old paper plans will not vanish anytime soon however. Buildings are built by people (not industry robots like for cars), and if the plans were digital, some device on the (dirty) site would be necessary to see them. That’s where the trouble would start. Paper is simple, big enough, lightweight and you can draw on it.
If Rhino is also dedicated to cater for architecture, better tools for plan graphics would be super welcome.
Already this topic brought into discussion
I See. Sorry, will search next time.