![archicad versus revit archicad versus revit](https://blog.render.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Archicad-Revit.jpg)
Enabling any other application from Autodesk (or anyone else) to import or export a Revit file. Saving back to an older version of Revit file.
![archicad versus revit archicad versus revit](https://www.infobuild.it/wp-content/uploads/go-pillar-revit-archicad.jpg)
Breaking up the processes into modular parts that can be computed in parallel with multiple processors. The constraint‐based BIM engine in Revit requires that its database be built in a certain order. This makes it very difficult for authors of the program to implement the following: a. As Revit constraints get ever more complex in a large building, even expert team members start expressing reluctance to make design changes because they sense the risk of crashing the model.Ħ. The Revit engine creates a BIM that is parametric at the building level. In other words, relationships are created automatically between building elements without the user initiating those relationships. For example, walls, columns, floors and ceilings all have relationships to each other based on circumstances like congruency, intersection, and perpendicular relationships, etc. This kind of automation may seem like it will ensure design integrity but instead, it eventually becomes a straight jacket where relationships are created on the fly that the users could not have anticipated. In Revit, the built‐in relationships and constraints are a huge disadvantage in the real‐world because they cause the model to be inflexible to design evolution and create dead‐ends that cannot be anticipated but can only be resolved by deleting elements and rebuilding them in the “right” order. Revit’s primitive work‐sharing tools require the fastest networking in order to collaborate. I.e. don’t expect to do worksharing from home or on a business trip, if you use Revit. ArchiCAD BIM Sever excels at this kind of thing. Revit suffers from a slow engine that lacks multiprocessing at its core code level. This results in slow regeneration of views, slow pan and zoom, and slow response to the most common user interactions. Revit’s uses more than one processor only for certain “bolt‐on” parts of the program such as rendering, family loading, and wall intersection clean‐up. When working on large models, workstations need to be often need to be restarted about once per 4 hours of Revit use. In contrast, Graphisoft has made each new version of ArchiCAD faster, even when used on the same machine s the previous version.
![archicad versus revit archicad versus revit](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b20589_c311435b451a4d6dbb707f366b1703b6~mv2.jpg)
Revit’s 64 bit claim does little more than allow large files. Few optimizations for speed or memory management and re‐use. RAM requirements are still 20 times model file size. Since it became a long list, I broke it into three categories: ArchiCAD vs. Revit By Ransom Ratcliff 2011‐08‐08 When comparing sophisticated applications such as Revit and ArchiCAD, one needs to really use them for a few years. I have been using ArchiCAD since 1995 and Revit since 2008. So here I have roughly outlined some of my impressions of versions of these two that I have had plenty of time to use, Revit 2011 and ArchiCAD 14.