If you must deliver native RVT/DWG edits in a live Revit or AutoCAD model, choose ArchiLabs Desktop; if you want to explore layout options in a browser and shape reusable components before committing to CAD, choose Studio. When both are involved, plan a scoped handoff with a confirmed export format and review steps—AI can help in each environment when your brief is concrete and well-documented.
ArchiLabs Desktop vs Studio: existing applications or browser modeling?
ArchiLabs Desktop connects directly to your existing Revit and AutoCAD on Windows so work lands as native elements, routed systems, and updated documentation inside your current project files and standards. See the positioning on the ArchiLabs Desktop page.
Studio is a browser design workspace with parametric components for quick optioning, layout planning, and authoring assemblies you can reuse across sites. It’s well suited to early planning and pattern-building; read the overview on the Studio page.
Desktop accepts narrated screen recordings, annotated screenshots, selected Revit elements, PDFs and spreadsheets as context. For a workflow spanning both products, confirm which inputs and exports each environment supports and retain a record of the reviewed handoff.
Integration availability varies by application version, plan, accounts, and permissions; confirm specifics for your environment during a demo.
How to choose between Desktop and Studio for a design workflow
• Required deliverable: If the next artifact is an RVT/DWG update that must touch families/blocks, parameters, views, or sheets in the active model, run it in Desktop so the result is natively created or modified in-place. If the next artifact is an option study, kit-of-parts definition, or browser-friendly review package, start in Studio.
• Existing data and tools: If you already have project families, view templates, and sheet standards that the change must respect now, Desktop executes in that context. If you need to shape rules, counts, and reusable components before mapping to specific families or blocks, Studio provides a browser workspace for that exploration.
• Review process: If stakeholders want to compare alternatives quickly in a web review and decide before any model changes, Studio supports that exploration. If stakeholders expect updated CAD views and sheets tied to the current project for sign-off, Desktop is the right venue.
Where AI contributes to model edits and configurable designs
In Desktop, AI turns your narrated recording, annotated screenshots, selected model elements, and reference documents into native element creation/updates, system routing, and documentation edits in the live project. In Studio, AI assembles layouts from parametric components for fast iteration, counts, and packaging options for review. These are team-run procedures: you specify inputs, desired edits, and acceptance checks; the products do not imply automatic round‑trip sync or full feature parity between environments.
Workflow example: plan office furniture, then update the project model
Hypothetical example, to show how a scoped handoff looks without assuming automatic export.
Goal
• Explore two open-office seating layouts with reusable desk and storage modules in Studio; select one; then brief Desktop to place corresponding families and update plan views in Revit.
Inputs to Studio (team practice)
• Underlay: a floor plan image of Level 4 with grid lines and key walls.
• An annotated screenshot marking circulation paths and areas to keep clear for future collaboration zones (labels only; no measured constraints).
• A spreadsheet listing module names (Desk_2P, Desk_4P, Storage_Locker, PhoneBooth), nominal widths/depths, and count targets per zone.
Studio procedure (team practice)
1) Assemble Option A and Option B using parametric components to meet the target counts per zone.
2) Generate a simple comparison sheet for each option that lists module counts by zone and a thumbnail plan for review.
3) Select an option based on feedback; export a review artifact (e.g., PDF summary and a plan image) to attach to the brief. Confirm with the team which export format will be used for reference in Revit.
Handoff brief to Desktop (Revit)
• Chosen option: Option B.
• Mapping file: a CSV that maps Studio module names to Revit families/types (e.g., Desk_4P → OFC_Desk_Bench_4P_TypeA; Storage_Locker → OFC_Storage_Locker_Type1). This mapping is prepared by the team.
• Placement context: Level = 4; Phase = New Construction; align desk runs to Grids C–G; use View L4_OpenOffice_Plan for coordination.
• Parameters to populate on placed instances: approved project instance fields for Department, Zone and Finish_Code where those bindings exist; hold any type-level or unavailable field for review.
• Documentation targets: Update L4_OpenOffice_Plan and duplicate dependent views for Zones 1–3; place updated views on Sheet A4.10.
Attachments for the brief
• A 2–3 minute screen recording walking through Option B in the browser and highlighting key desk runs by grid.
• Two annotated images calling out zone boundaries and desk-run start/end references.
• Mapping.csv with module → family/type mapping and parameter values.
• OptionB_Review.pdf with the module counts and the selected plan image.
Acceptance checks (Desktop run)
• Counts and mapping: the number of desks and storage units placed per zone matches the CSV; all placements use the mapped Revit families/types.
• Placement intent: desk runs begin/terminate at the referenced grids or walls per the annotated images; PhoneBooth instances are within the labeled areas in Zones 2–3.
• Parameters: Department and Zone populated on all placed instances; Finish_Code applied where provided.
• Documentation: L4_OpenOffice_Plan updated; dependent views created for Zones 1–3; Sheet A4.10 updated with office annotation styles.
This example shows a controlled, team-authored handoff. It does not assume Studio can export directly into Desktop or map to families automatically; the mapping and format are defined by the team, then confirmed in the demo.
What to confirm in an ArchiLabs product demo
• For our Revit/AutoCAD versions and permissions, which native edits and documentation updates are supported today?
• What inputs (recordings, screenshots, selected elements, spreadsheets) produce the most reliable outcomes for our use case?
• How do we provide family/type mappings or block choices when translating a layout concept into native elements?
• Which export formats from Studio are supported for reference during a Desktop run, and how are they attached to the brief?
• How are acceptance checks reported back so reviewers can verify counts, placements, and updated views/sheets?
Explore Revit automation and browser modeling workflows
If you’re planning option studies before committing to CAD, see how layout logic gets packaged in practice in AI CAD for Commercial Real Estate Test Fits and Site Planning. For teams deciding where automation should live inside Revit, the tradeoffs among scripting and AI are unpacked in Revit Automation: Macros vs Dynamo vs Python vs AI.
Bring a small test area, a narrated screen recording, two annotated images, and a draft mapping CSV to your demo; run one Studio option study and one Desktop native update against the acceptance checks above to validate the path for your team.
Speed credible test fits with ArchiLabs AI CAD—multi-option layouts, counts, massing, PDFs—linked to your CAD/BIM and firm standards.
Compare Revit macros, Dynamo, Python, and AI assistants to automate BIM tasks faster, reduce errors, and pick the best workflow.