Designing Electrical Projects with Revit?

I'd say get on and design it yourself (if you consider yourself a designer). If you use a software tool, who're you going to blame when it all goes wrong?

No design tool (or rather their supplier) is going to take responsibility for the loss of revenue due to failed comms etc., let alone the dead people, the wrecked lives, or the burned-down buildings (in the worst case).

Like most things in life there is no easy solution that will do everything let alone everything well. You will likely be better of using multiple separate specialised software packages that are far better suited to specific tasks and hence easier and faster to work with, regardless of whether or not it is theoretically possible in Redit.

I once designed a multi page CAD drawing project using the drawing function in Microsoft Word rather than CAD, just for the heck of it to see if it was possible. Yes it can be done but obviously a proper drawing package would have been far faster and better.

Like any Autodesk product, it's as good as the operator.

After the learning curve.

When I needed to re-learn AutoCad I went to an authorized learning vendor, and paid for it.

It sounds like you know more about this than anybody else here.

Revit us primarily a 3D design tool for architects, which can modify and edit 2D drawings, but that's not its primary purpose. 99.9% of what you need to do in electrical work will be 2D drafting. I'm a proponent of having the right tool for the job. There are plenty of great electrical CAD packages out there, I suggest using one of those.

There are many questions here being asked, possibly without realising it.

I have used both Revit and AutoCAD extensively in my profession for creating all kinds of electrical and mechanical installations in buildings. All electrical systems can be created in Revit.

But by design do you mean that the software does some of the design work for you? Certainly there are some packages that do permit limited design for certain types of installation (such as HVAC, lighting design or cable calculation for example). However they will not cover all such systems (for example data networks, fire, security, MATV), and have significant limitations on those they do purport to design. In these instances Revit becomes a drawing tool only. And they will always require the eye of the designer to create the finished product.

Revit allows (indeed requires) the designer to create 3D layouts. Since this is the way buildings are built it is (currently) the most optimal design tool for the construction profession. It enables architects, structural and services engineers to interact and uncover co-ordination issues, and co-operate on solutions. Changes can be implemented in electrons rather than concrete.

But the output from these packages is not artwork; the drawing is not the end purpose. All drawings, 3D or 2D, spreadsheets, specifications, RFI lists, site meetings, final accounts, O&M Manuals and so forth are there to create a building. As such it is totally reasonable to create such designs in 2D AutoCAD, and most of my present work is in this form.

Revit is the way forward and many major projects require its use as a prerequisite. This leads onto BIM and other grand facilities. That's why Autodesk bought the company in the first place. But it is a big learning curve and a major investment, much more than the transition from drawing board to VDU.

If I may strike an analogy. I wish to move goods between 2 cities hundreds of km apart. I have a perfectly serviceable road, with access to lots of experienced drivers and economical trucks. My goods take a while to travel, sometimes hit a bump, but by and large it all works well.

But I could build a railway. It would take a lot of effort and investment, requires new trains to be built and drivers to be trained. My goods are shipped in standard railway cars. Its much faster, more efficient, and my railway cars are all compatible by the simple caveat that if they don't conform to the track, they don't run.

My goods don't care. They are the same in both cases and arrive either way. So does the reduction in delivery time offset the expense in infrastructure and training?

If you are a young designer in building services, you should already be well adept at truck driving. But I suggest you gain your locomotive license ASAP, get a cap, and wave to the truckers on the highway below as you steam past.

That's like asking "what do people think about using a hammer to build a house"

Revit is only a tool,.... nothing more.

As opposed to using an air operated nail gun?

Or opposed to a check book and paying someone else to do it.

Some peoples main tool in their tool box should be a check book.

Hammer? Hammer???? We don't need no stinking hammer!

Just print one!

See post #9

Revit is Audodesk's solution to providing a better product than AutoCAD to plan electrical design work.

If you are using any CAD product for either the design or documentation phase and are using AutoCAD then you are likely shortchanging yourself, and should be using Revit.

Regardless of what others think, Revit does not do the work for you. It is only the tool to help you make your work more accurate, likely with better results.