# Revit transfer to RISA and vice versa...



## McEngr (Feb 24, 2015)

Has anyone found success in transfterring from Revit to Risa? I have found all sorts of problems in the transfer - and I'm not optimistic that it will ever be nice. I'm a little concerned because the principal structural engineer may think it's an untapped benefit, and I hate to be the killer of progress...


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Feb 24, 2015)

Never used Revit. We use STAAD in the office but are going to update to RISA soon.


----------



## blybrook PE (Feb 24, 2015)

I tried it in the past several times. It can be a very unfriendly process.

It has gotten significantly better than it was when the link plugin first came out.

For extremely basic structures, it works alright. Once you get above two stories, your revit workflow has to be spot on for it to transfer properly. As an example: one project I worked on several years ago took three hours to build in revit, 15 minutes to transfer to risa and nearly 2 days (~12 hours) to debug and correct the coordinates for all of the joints.

Edit - I should add that more architects are embracing BIM and revit is becoming the new drafting software of choice in my locale.


----------



## Porter_ (Mar 1, 2015)

TehMightyEngineer said:


> We use STAAD in the office but are going to update to RISA soon.




that's odd, every company i've talked with is going the other way and moving from RISA to STAAD. thankfully my company is sticking with RISA for the time being as i'm completely unfamiliar with STAAD other than flipping through the manual and running through a tutorial back in 2007.


----------



## thoughtofthis (Mar 4, 2015)

I use the RISA Revit transfer all the time. It's easy once you get the hang of it. I find it very useful building a model - I don't have to worry about the geometry input into RISA which can be unfriendly. It's also great to round trip back to Revit and transfer my updates and loads for use on the plans. My hunch is you're not taking full advantage of the analytical model in Revit to make the transfer smooth. Revit also makes it easier when you get a new architectural model/background in. Tasks that would take half a day or more to chase through are done in a matter of seconds. The flexibility to generate as many sections as you want, automatically schedule columns, walls, etc. makes for more complete and coordinated drawings. I'm surprised you think it's worthless...

BTW, Revit has been out for over 10 years.


----------



## McEngr (Mar 9, 2015)

thoughtofthis - I'm not a big fan of these software programs being an end all, be all, to structural analysis. I've come across a few engineers that are great at running an analysis program, but they couldn't come up with a hand calc to prove the results they are doing. The issue that I have with Revit is its lack of general communication in regards to diaphragms, chords, collectors, etc. I end up having to manipulate nodes, putting rigid links in and/or slaves, and manipulate the diaphragms for varying beam heights, etc. Revit is good for very basic translation, but when you want a very, very accurate model, then you begin fudging numbers and letting the software do the "coverup".

Like I said, if the user is very advanced and is dedicated to this kind of transfer, then that's great. But if you're having to be the engineer in responsible charge and having to seal very sensitive drawings, then it becomes a too consuming. For architects that start with a bad concept and have to change the drawings a lot due to no thought of a lateral system (quite common), then I can see your scenario working well. I suppose it's your comfort level.

For me, I spend more time just making the transfer into a model that I am comfortable with.

To each his own...


----------



## thoughtofthis (Mar 9, 2015)

Firstly, I find that response condescending, which is odd coming from someone who was asking for advice. Secondly, you're talking about RISA, not Revit. IMO, the benefits of Revit are drafting efficiency and increased coordination on the CDs. The link is more a time saver getting a model started. If you're just wary of analysis software in general, then that's a different issue.


----------



## thoughtofthis (Mar 9, 2015)

That's great haha. how does software become 'soSucks!'?


----------



## thoughtofthis (Mar 9, 2015)

s-o-f-t-w-a-r-e


----------



## McEngr (Mar 9, 2015)

thought - I don't mean to be condescending. I've used RISA for 15 years (since college). I understand RISA pretty well. There have been times when I can't even delete a node when it comes from a transfer file. It makes me a little nervous as I've never encountered that in RISA. Anyhow, when I run into more problems, I'll just count on this internet forum, you specifically, to help out.


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Mar 9, 2015)

thoughtofthis said:


> s-o-f-t-w-a-r-e


lol

autocorrect doesn't like software?


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Mar 9, 2015)

WHAT?! It's the forum? Seriously, soft-ware without the dash turning into software...

That's hilarious.


----------



## kevo_55 (Mar 9, 2015)

Oh yes, it does suck very much. 

And yes, this is the forum.


----------



## blybrook PE (Mar 14, 2015)

TehMightyEngineer said:


> WHAT?! It's the forum? Seriously, soft-ware without the dash turning into software...
> 
> That's hilarious.


Stick around a while and read the threads, you'll find out why it changes...


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Mar 15, 2015)

What do they have against F-T-W anyway?


----------



## DaveEng (Mar 15, 2015)

I don't think much of Revit. TME, you say you use STAAD but are about to switch to RISA - have you heard about STAAD(X) that will debut this year? It is going to replace STAAD.Pro


----------



## TehMightyEngineer (Mar 16, 2015)

I have not, I shall research immediately.  

However, the biggest reason we're switching away from STAAD is we had some disagreement with their current direction their taking STAAD and their licensing. Not sure if that will outweigh any new features but it's always worth looking.


----------

