I would compare ArchiCad graphic display to the Airplane, a bit more complicated to come to grips with all the options., but gives so much more options than Revit, which I would compare to the car.ThereвЂ™s a big push to use Building Information Modelling (BIM) for submissions in Singapore. To some extend I agree with the above, the more control you give to the user the more you have to learn to master the control. In archicad easy to navigate into a model to see what you are doing without having to hide some wallsвЂ¦.ДЄrchiCad's graphic display is far superior to Revit in my mind, endless options and permutations. It makes me feel like the craftsman doing the actual work on site and not the draughtsman in CAD - Revit. In archiCad I can navigate easily close up and into model and work on the smallest detail in real time perspective view with textures etc. can only work in isometric with clumsy tools to move around. The one thing I hate most in Revit is the model navigation. On a positive note, roof editing in Revit has greatly improved over the past few years, it used to be a dog (with it's own mind).ДЇlexibility in hiding groups of elements is great for certain type of drawings you are displaying but I often have the need to sub-divide groups of element and get bogged down. You can't just pull and push roofs and slabs in Revit, have to go in edit mode every time, change boundary lines, hope that they all connect (has to be checked each time) and click accept. I keep constantly temporarily hide things and to get them back they all come back and have to hide the items again that I did not want to come back.ДЇlexibiltiy great in Revit? You must be joking. Endless options that I don't have in Revit.

Layers organised in view sets allow the user to have many different options to show to the client in ArchiCad. Nice to see a more systematic comparison. Nothing here would be a real deal-braker, if you ask me. Probably just personal opinions and to be frank, most of this is at a level of different nuances between the programs. I find this a clear distinction between modelling (and toggling for making things clear) on the one hand and defining the actual representation in an actual view. while resting assured that the placed views are not influenced by this. In ArchiCAD you have views which set all display options, but at any time you can toggle of visibility of layers, display options, scaling etc.

If you want to have a different representation, you need to either change the view (with effects downstream where the view is used) or create a new one. View templates > As a disadvantage I see is that you can only navigate inside Revit using the Views. IMHO, the control using layers in ArchiCAD is fairly easy to grasp by end users, certainly when coming from CAD, whereas the visibility of things inside Revit requires a lot of toggling of options in a large, non-graphical, table dialog. Is that a + or a -? You indicate B- whereas Revit without layers receives A. Seeing that Renovation Filters are mentioned for ArchiCAD, it's not that old ) 15 or 16 at least.ДЄrchiCAD has layers and good control over them. Revit 2013 view templates are excellent and function is a predictable manner. Although this works well, it is difficult for lower skilled View templates per se in ArchiCAD, however clone folders and settingsДЄssigned to views in the view map are similar. Each view can be modified with theДisplayed by Model elements, annotation elements, analytical, Revit links, Has built in Ceiling view types that control how elements are displayed. Options control whether the door swings, window tags or other elements areДifficult for lower skilled non-software-savvy people to grasp. Phases and worksets to replace the layer paradigm No layers! Revit uses visibility graphic controls, Management issue on large and long running projects.

Are shown or hidden, locked or unlocked, hidden line or solid, and wallДЄre used to define specific drawing view types.

Revit vs archicad