In the not-too-distant future, Autodesk will launch the integrated, multi-disciplinary version of its BIM solution, and name it Revit Integrated. Revit Int. – for short.
I can see the headlines, the AEC Bytes review, User-groups and User-blogs all terribly excited about the potential this new approach will bring.
No longer will architects need to fight with structural modellers over the ownership of columns, pipes will return to be just what they always have been, pipes, suitable to be used as, downpipes as well as specially engineered metadata-rich liquid carriers.
Sovereignty will be granted to many an element currently residing in no-man’s-land and dimension styles will carry over disciplines. You will not have to have 3 different software packages loaded up on your machine to create ONE digital building and all training will be uniform.
It won’t be just the Autodesk devotees celebrating; many others in neighbouring/competing camps will possibly take notice.
Some of them (from both camps) will feel a bit uncomfortable with the new developments.
Even a bit cheated by Autodesk’s previous marketing hype that promoted Revit in 3 different flavours.
Many of them will ask the questions:
How could it make sense for Autodesk to promote a solution that was supposed to make everyone seamlessly collaborate while using an ‘artificially’ segmented set of tools?
How could we have all fallen for it?