Ok, JMuser here we go...

Per your last paragraph:

"Revit is a lot closer to being a single workflow product (design to construction) than Sketch-up is.  You can't do construction documents in Sketch-up.  We have all the tools we need in Revit to design, it just may not be exactly like you can do it in sketchup."

You see, in it's inception, Sketchup was not intentionally intending to created a "single workflow product".  It was meant to be used as a quick design tool and eventually has grown into a program that can now put out some simple animations and amazing rendered visuals thanks to third party applications. That is it, that is all it was intended for.

Revit arguable has "Many" advantages, however, I am going to list for everyone why I still see us using Sketchup initially before going into the "Revit Workflow".

1st  - Sketchup allows the user to import an image of the project site from "google earth" (to scale), and start immediatly push pulling elements of the site to get an immediate, early, crude, site study model; to use for context. Plus you can see the image while working on it.  You cannot work ontop of an image while in Revit, this limitation I know most are aware of.

2nd - Sketchup allows ease of use for the designer to design on the fly - ie. making changes "almost" as fast as they can think them through.  It allows for quick reference to massing, shape relationship, and even turning on material mapping to allow the user to quickly figure out materiality early on in the design. 

3rd - Sketchup allows for solar study of your model as you work through your design, or it can just be turned on as you need it to see shadow angles. This user friendly program allows for a massive location selection from a preset list of cities around the world or input the latitude/longitude for a geographic coordinate system - ON THE FLY!  I am not aware of Revit's capability in comparison to this, or the ease of use as it is in Sketchup.

Finally - Sketchup just feels much more intuitive and natural.  For me, as a designer, when it comes to designing on the fly I think of Sketchup as our generations version of "Trace Paper"!  I can go through many "Quick and Dirty" study models in Sketchup with easy to use tools, versus opening the program that is Revit, and feeling overwhelmed and overpowered by the complexity and number of tools that Revit provides; which is not necessary for "early schematic design".

As a designer, I love "Instant Gratification" when I design. Thus Sketchup provides this too us, and allows us to see the model in Perspective while Revit still only allows for Isometric/Axialmetric views. Which in my mind doesn't help a designer when trying to see visual relationships due to the skewed view, unless you take a moment to setup a "3d" view in Revit.  Another, needless step in my mind.

Until Revit finally adds a true "design" feature or schematic opening scheme to it's Revit user Interface, I will continue to use Sketchup for most of my design needs. I know this is not what you want to hear, but I felt it needed to be said.

Best Regards,

Well, I find myself in the middle of this battle trying to use the best of both programs. Sometimes I get frustrated with both and in other occasions I found easier to import or export from one program to the other models that I cannot achieve with one of them.

On one hand Revit is a very powerful tool that can do it all. If you stretch the program to its limits it can do it all.  The down side of it is that is not easy and friendly for everyone especially old architects and designers; so use to their hands, the classic AutoCAD and the 2D mentality. SketchUp, on the other hand, is user friendly and almost anyone can master it in no time, from little kids for fun to old architects that need to design and see 3D in real time.  I find this tool a great design tool, but to certain limitations, but it is free. 

Revit.  Anyone that has experienced Revit is more likely to compare it with AutoCAD rather than SketchUp. The purpose of Revit is to generate 3D models full of information intended reduce the time spent on drawing coordination, layering, noting systems, etc.  It has become more sophisticated and we have tools in Revit similar to those in SketchUp, 3DSVIZ and other software.  This is the main reason I like Revit, I can have it all in just one program.  Yes, it might take me three o more times to create a model than in SketchUp, but at the end I will have CDs, Schedules, options to modify the model with parameters rather than redesign the model, can create photorealistic models, and can do conceptual programming and pricing very, very easy and fast. However, I find it uneasy to design with it.  I guess because in Revit we tend to materialize everything since the beginning of our model and not allow time for chance, experimentation or accidental design.  In other words we make assembly decisions too quickly that we forget form and space at that particular stage of our conceptual model. Then we tend to concentrate too much on the parametric formulas that distract the workflow of the design thought, leaving no space to brainstorm ideas and possibilities in the actual form rather than in the mathematical equations.  Revit is a great modeling tool, but it can distract our minds from the design intent unless the concept of design is an algorithmic permutation of set parameters, then I guess it is right and appropriate to use Revit as a design tool.

SketchUp. Anyone can learn SketchUp and this, in my opinion, is not right.  I have seen “architecture” posted on SketchUp forums that is poorly designed. Lots of people with no architecture background think they can do architecture just because they learned this software.  SketchUp is a great design tool but has limitations when it comes to organic forms. Yes, it is crude and messy. It is suppose to be like this, like a sketch. Many users like to build their models by faces because it is really easy and fast to build models this way. But it becomes a nightmare when they need to make changes out of faces and a single layer. Specially if you are not the original model creator. I like to use wall groups and component so a can create fake masses and have a more accurate model.  Whichever way, by faces or fake mass groups, SketchUp allows you to manipulate the model almost exclusively for the search of form and space. Yes, it allows you to see material in real time, but it does not distract our minds from the design workflow.  I find SketchUp quick to design to explore possibilities, but I am obsessed with the control of the model and then it takes me more time to create the model. I use the layer tools, fake masses, groups and components.  All of these give me more flexibility to turn off and on elements that I do not need. And, when changes come, it is very easy to make them. Great design tool for conceptual to schematic design.  There are some pricing parameters that can be added to the material faces per square areas for material pricing.  But it lacks of area calculations and programming very important in the conceptual design stage.  SketchUp was never intended to recreate construction documents although I have seen CDs that were generated from the SketchUp models, very bad practice. One can deviate from its main purpose when adding lots of items to the model, such as luxury car, trees, people and other pre-created components just because the model will look more complete or will be decorated with stuff not necessary when designing.  I wish SketchUp was more flexible to create organic forms and not limiting the user to rectilinear model with some curves, but mostly rectilinear.   

Both tools are great to me depending on what I am commission to do. Choose the best way to achieve your job.  If you are commissioned to design and look for form and space then choose SketchUp. If you know that the design will evolve to a design development stage then it is right to use Revit with out falling into those distracters mentioned before. Use the right tool according to your needs, design with Revit if you are able to achieve not parametric and coordinated results, but thoughtful designs not generated from parametric components or material elements; but from the actual process of your mind transmitted to the computer.  On the other hand, use SketchUp with and opened mind to create multiple and well though possibilities and not pretty models generated in few minutes. An achitect should be able to control the design and model parameters, not letting the model to control the design within its parameters.

DM

Ok so DM explained it better than I could. I agree with the workflow path that he has described, because it truly will depend on the project that determines whether you will or will not use Sketchup first.

You may think I am beating around the bush, but I think you're not listening. Also, I think that as you gain more experience with the design side of things that you will see the points that I listed in the aforementioned post.

"In regard to your response about hand drawing, I don't know anyone that still hand draws through SDs...Hand drawing, it seems to me, now is almost always accompanied by some sort of Computer Aided Drafting, whether AutoCAD, Sketchup, etc."

 Maybe where you work Jmuser, you may have had many opportunities to work initially in design, but in my experience I have seen hand drawings go through SD's (and quite recently). I never said that we completed SD's with them, nor did we create a pricing set with them. I don't know where you read that into my post.

"In relation to that, no one addressed my point about when is the transition made? "

That's because every project is different, as in design complexity, timeline, available in house resources, etc.  So every project will have a different transition point.

"I personally think SD is too late... by then you are going to be repeating a lot of work..."

Large changes can happen as far into DD's.  I understand that the arguement here is about duplication of work, but really you see that even from hand to computer, or to 3D model.  We have and always will dupilcate work.  It's the amount that we have to do that is questionable and may become less with the better development of Revits' Schematic Design User interface, which Autodesk may "LET" us have in version 2020.  It remains to be seen.

"Once the designer feels comfortable about the form and the hand drawn sketches of the plans and whatever else feel ok, it needs to be moved to Revit for refinement."

Once again, the designer will have created schematic plans, elevations, - massing in 3D, already implementing early materiality, and other study's before going to Revit. This runs parallel to my conversation I just had with a friend at HKS on how their design team implements design to Revit, and guess what?  They are using a Hand Drawing/Sketchup/Revit Hybrid Approach.

"I won't deny the fact that Sketchup will probably be around a while...it is owned by Google, and it has made a name for itself.  But I don't think that's a reason to use Sketchup in place of Revit or the other way around as far as Autodesk is concerned"  

I Never once stated this.  Either you're not reading what I said, or your trying too hard to interpret something that is not there.

"Cost can be a factor, but here's the bottom line...You most certainly can't (currently) get a commercial building built with Sketchup (maybe residential if you designed it and showed it to a contractor, but he is still gonna want to interpret the design into plans he can build from).  So even if Sketchup is free, it won't get the building built."

Again, where is this coming from?  I never stated such, nor implied it. Again, please read what  was actually wrote.

"The design makes no difference if you can't get it built, so you are still stuck with buying some software that allows you to generate CDs, so I don't know where that falls into the equation either, unless you are refering to firm that does only design, and did so in the free version of sketcup (or Pro since it is much cheaper than Revit), and then passed that model onto another company to generate the construction docs from...that could be viable I guess, but seriously?..."

Again, I reiterate my last comment.

I agree that Autodesk has everyone "hooked" and is dragging us along in a lot of senses.  Why they don't just overhaul the program and add as many features as they can in one release, I'm not entirely sure. 

I gave the reason in my last post. It is a money and numbers game.  They will not give you everything you want, because then there would be nothing to give you, or make it worth your while to upgrade for a long time.  Autodesk wants users to upgrade every year.  This is how they make money, and stay profitable for their investors.

"I know that I am a beta tester, and it is a lot more complicated of a program than most realize, with so many interdependencies from one feature to another.  I think you have the part of Autodesk (Marketing) that says we can limit (somewhat) the features released in each version, and string people along, and you have the other side of it where there are (realistically like any company) limits to how much new development they can actually make)."

Exactly!

"On some accounts (perspective view modeling and materials not included because I agree this should be added), Autodesk has to look at its feature requests and really determine if it will help or hurt as far as achieving BIM.  Not every idea is a good idea."

But they also need to ask themselves do you want designers to start using your product earlier on or using the "Google-ly" product (as it was referred to at Autodesk's Imagine Tour) earlier on, as more people start to gain momentum in the ease of use and lesser learning curve.

 It's a No Brainer.

"And finally, in relation to the "Sketchup being our generations sketch paper."  I personally think that Revit is more inclined to this than Sketchup." 

Your opinion, but as designers go I know that they (and I) would disagree with you.

"Although it is easier to create basic forms in sketch up, more complex forms are another story."

This isn't true. This is just the difference between the "Amateur" and the "Expert" Sketchup Users.

Here is a link to a GREAT Example, as proof, if you do not believe me:

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=12513&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=black

I hardly think you could do this in Revit, as easily - But then you're more than welcome to prove me wrong.

"For example, consider a sloped roof.  I have seen complex roofs being drawn in both programs, and Sketchup hold no light to how quickly this can be achieved in Revit.  On top of that, once you get it modeled, its WAY EASIER to adjust pitch, gable ends etc...and the roof shape is truly driven by a "sketch" that is maintained throughout the life of the object..."

This I will agree with you on to some extent, due to a current project I am working with, though many projects we deal with don't have pitched roofs.

I think there are a lot of things in Revit that we either don't think about or take for granted because it is such a robust program...that "robustness" also natually makes it more complex. 

Agreed.

"I don't disagree with hardly anything you are saying,..."

You don't?

Well, that is not how your post reads. So I took the pleasure of breaking it out, and answering you almost line by line.

"I just think there are other perspectives that we don't look at, while we limit ourselves to our current workflows and perspectives.  I'll admit, I do the same thing on the Revit extreme,...

... Just try looking at it through a Designers Perspective...

 "...and I think there could be a Sketch-up/Revit hybrid approach similiar to what I describe a few paragraphs above, but I would want to be very careful, to limit the amount of reduplication of work."

Again, only the advent of future technology can help us reduce on the duplication front, but be aware my friend that we Architect(ural) professionals, will always find ways to use up more time.