- #Autodesk autocad system requirements update
- #Autodesk autocad system requirements software
- #Autodesk autocad system requirements code
Whilst practices have been moving over to named user licensing since the letter was published, the premium subscription has added little value but a significant ill feeling. This issue is at the core of the customer-to-vendor trust relationship and fundamentally undermines the progress that may be made in other areas. The feeling remains that Autodesk has deliberately avoided investment in appropriate tools, instead expanding its compliance staffing and revenues. Software delivery and licensing have to keep up with the pragmatism of the age and the multiplicity of infrastructures that have been deployed.
#Autodesk autocad system requirements software
What right-minded and ethical organisation instructs its sales and support channel not to help clients with their licence compliance?įurther, the pandemic has expanded and accelerated how design software is being used in a remote, hybrid, virtual or flexible office environment. The compliance model isīroken because Autodesk still fails to provide a licence model and effective administration tools that allow customers to self-audit and maintain live compliancy. On licence compliance, several Open Letter signatories have been audited, with no compliance issues found but requiring substantial non-productive effort from each practice to prove their case. The feeling to date is that whilst Autodesk has listened, it has not heard what the architectural customer base is saying on several fronts. In the period since the Autodesk Open Letter, Autodesk has reached out to a wide variety of architectural customer groups.
#Autodesk autocad system requirements update
The Open Letter Group (OLG) recently sent AEC Magazine this update on Autodesk’s actions to the points they raised in their 2020 open letter: What does AEC Magazine think? Read our analysis Autodesk’s Revit team also published its roadmap on Trello. Autodesk was already negotiating to join the ODA to get access to the IFC library but in answering the OLG, Autodesk highlighted this as a case in point that showed it was listening. However, we did notice Autodesk placed some job adverts around Revit and there did seem to be more budget allocated to Revit development for the subsequent releases with a considerable uptick in enhancements. But these may have coincided with changes already in the pipeline. There were some immediate benefits, seemingly in response to the Open Letter, such as Autodesk delaying the end of Network licences and an extension to the number of versions back a company was allowed to run. After this, there was ongoing engagement between the Revit development team and the OLG, with much time spent on feature requests and product roadmaps.
#Autodesk autocad system requirements code
With Revit’s code base being 20 years old, the more fundamental question was – is Revit ever going to be redeveloped from the ground up or is this it?Īs design IT directors, responsible for whole software spend, the Group was also exacerbated by Autodesk’s business practices, and was reeling from the loss of network licences, the ending of perpetual licences, and a wholesale move to Autodesk subscription.Īutodesk reacted with several public responses from Amy Bunzsel (senior vice president of Design & Creation products at the time, but made VP of AEC soon after) and Autodesk CEO, Andrew Anagnost.Īutodesk also agreed to meet the Open Letter Group (OLG) for a ‘listening session’, to hear the complaints to the C-level team at Autodesk. With a software architecture that did not much benefit from multi-core CPUs or powerful GPUs, and an insatiable drive to model bigger and in more detail, design IT managers were frustrated at the loss of productivity. Revit development velocity for years had failed to meet the expectations of mature users whose businesses have come to rely on the tool. Autodesk seemed to have pivoted to fund development and acquisitions of what became the Autodesk Construction Cloud. The fundamental part of this was Revit and its future. The practices involved raised serious concerns over a number of wide-ranging issues: the lack of development of Revit, increasing cost, lack of control for managers over licences with punitive non-compliance fines, too many licence models, the cessation of network licences, the jumble of applications that were suites / collections, of which only 10% are typically installed, poor interoperability and no insight into the road ahead. This summer at our NXT BLD event we were reminded that it was almost two years since the original Open Letter to Autodesk came out and rocked the architectural world. Two years on from the original Open Letter to Autodesk from International architectural practices, AEC Magazine was keen to hear from the signatories, as to how well they felt Autodesk had done in meeting their requests