|
Home > Archive > Architecture > October 2006 > Off the Deep End - and OT, too!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Off the Deep End - and OT, too!
|
|
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-20, 5:25 pm |
| Well...
After a disastrous migration from ADT 2006 to ADT 2007, we're going to
take the Revit plunge. We'll let you know how it goes. We've figured
that our small office has lot at least 100 hours of productivity because
of Autocad related bugs and problems.
I'll let you all know how it goes...
P
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:Xz8_g.15$x87.2@newsfe06.lga...
> Well...
>
> After a disastrous migration from ADT 2006 to ADT 2007, we're going to
> take the Revit plunge. We'll let you know how it goes. We've figured
> that our small office has lot at least 100 hours of productivity because
> of Autocad related bugs and problems.
>
> I'll let you all know how it goes...
>
> P
AHHHHHHHH!
From what I've seen, Revit sucks. The drawings look bad and it makes you
draw in a way that's counter intuitive all in the name of 3-D and
automation.
The auto elevations, sections & schedules I've seen are loaded with errors
and corrections are difficult or immpossible.
And don't forget sharing files. It can be done but... I like clean drawings
with minimal layers and line types. Revit creates a ton of shit when you
export to DWG.
My boss has toyed with getting Revit because he seems to think the quick 3D
is slick but at what cost? How many of those presentations do we make?
Nowhere near enough to change the whole way you draw.
Yes, I think it's evil.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-20, 5:25 pm |
| JD wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
> news:Xz8_g.15$x87.2@newsfe06.lga...
>
> AHHHHHHHH!
>
> From what I've seen, Revit sucks. The drawings look bad and it makes you
> draw in a way that's counter intuitive all in the name of 3-D and
> automation.
And ADT is better?
>
> The auto elevations, sections & schedules I've seen are loaded with errors
> and corrections are difficult or immpossible.
I've played with it enough to see that they're actually better than ADT,
by far. ADT is a configuration nightmare. Not only that, but days need
to be spent porting our standards over.
>
> And don't forget sharing files. It can be done but... I like clean drawings
> with minimal layers and line types. Revit creates a ton of shit when you
> export to DWG.
Ahh...but our consultants already crap 'em up, so I'm not worried about
that.
>
> My boss has toyed with getting Revit because he seems to think the quick 3D
> is slick but at what cost? How many of those presentations do we make?
> Nowhere near enough to change the whole way you draw.
I dunno... I'm ready to start over. I've looked at the other Autocad
alternatives and been less excited by them than anything...
At some point, it's time to start over... We've done Autocad the old
way...two lines for a wall, etc. It takes way too long comparatively.
ADT is getting worse with each release...additional complexity making it
more difficult to just get the job done.
The 3D stuff means little to me...it's the productivity that's important.
>
> Yes, I think it's evil.
And Autocad is more evil...
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:2ya_g.400$iA1.79@newsfe05.lga...
> The 3D stuff means little to me...it's the productivity that's important.
I use ADT 2004 and I have no problem with it other than the usual autocad
crap like associative dim problems and hatching that has an attitude.
I rarely use the wall functions, I am a lot faster drawing the lines and I
don't have to contend with the bugs. Plus, who in the hell needs all that
detail when drawing doors and windows? That's what schedules are for!
I see the same problems with Revit with one very key difference:
REVIT DOESN'T LET YOU DRAW ANY OTHER WAY!
If I had to use Revit I'd probably quit.
I see a disturbing trend in cad -- over detailing. Who had the bright idea
to show door thickness, casings, etc, etc? Here's how you draw a door:
1) Place the jambs - 2 lines
2) Draw the door perpendicular to the wall (usually) - 1 line
3) Draw an arc from the end of the door to the opposite jamb - 1 arc
Voila! One door, 4 elements. Easy, fast, no bugs.
It's a huge mistake to have 3D drive 2D production.
| |
|
| One more thing.
Why all the enamorment over saving keystrokes? I didn't go to college to
punch a time clock and I certainly didn't go to do piecework.
The real sad thing is that drafting is a lost art. I'm talking about the art
of puting a set of drawings together that make sense and only say what needs
to be said.
With each passing day, the percentage of people in the field who have done
any drafting by hand is dwindling. What's more, I would be shocked if any of
the guys developing cad software have ever seen a parallel bar or t-square
in person, let alone used one.
That's the real problem with all of cad.
That and the over-emphasis on 3D.
I'm not trying to make a "good ol' days" speech, I'm just venting over the
lack of sense in the tools of the trade.
We used to hire specialists to do renderings. Why the need to give everyone
the pseudo ability?
Cad's #1 function is architecture is producing working drawings. Those
drawings are then used to make real life buildings. Can anyone tell me why
the real thing has been shoved in the back seat in favor of pretty pictures?
It's a classic case of wag the dog.
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Qvc_g.152$s6.116@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
> news:2ya_g.400$iA1.79@newsfe05.lga...
>
>
> I use ADT 2004 and I have no problem with it other than the usual autocad
> crap like associative dim problems and hatching that has an attitude.
>
> I rarely use the wall functions, I am a lot faster drawing the lines and I
> don't have to contend with the bugs. Plus, who in the hell needs all that
> detail when drawing doors and windows? That's what schedules are for!
>
> I see the same problems with Revit with one very key difference:
> REVIT DOESN'T LET YOU DRAW ANY OTHER WAY!
>
> If I had to use Revit I'd probably quit.
>
> I see a disturbing trend in cad -- over detailing. Who had the bright idea
> to show door thickness, casings, etc, etc? Here's how you draw a door:
>
> 1) Place the jambs - 2 lines
> 2) Draw the door perpendicular to the wall (usually) - 1 line
> 3) Draw an arc from the end of the door to the opposite jamb - 1 arc
>
> Voila! One door, 4 elements. Easy, fast, no bugs.
>
> It's a huge mistake to have 3D drive 2D production.
>
| |
|
| > >> After a disastrous migration from ADT 2006 to ADT 2007, we're going to
I'm fighting it at school. "Hey, I'll tutor cad. I can do that. ...
Oh crap, they're using 2007 and it's set up all different..." Though
the more I'm seeing of how it's taught, the more I am leaning towards
just starting the poor kids over "propertly."
Totally.
Don't suppose there's time to slap some images on a web page somewhere
so we can see what you're doing with it and how it's working?
[color=darkred]
I'd say it isn't in the name of those things. The real deal is BIM and
the root idea there is a good one. I say nothing about specific
products or their attempts to implement BIM though.
[color=darkred]
Well, if the world worked the way it was supposed to, you wouldn't care
about the DWGs. If.
Layers would be there and line types should be what you specify (unless
it's going apeshit and creating them, like "third floor door knob
continuous". Which is the kind of thing automated generators of stuff
(see auto generated HTML. yoiks.) are good at. But you shouldn't (be
having to) be touching the DWGs. Shouldn't.
[color=darkred]
How many and the cost question is relevant. Sure, it's "quick" when you
say "give it to me" but if you have to create a room and specify a wall
height and... instead of drawing one rectangle then how "quick" was it
really?
[color=darkred]
> At some point, it's time to start over... We've done Autocad the old
> way...two lines for a wall, etc. It takes way too long comparatively.
Quicker than a pencil. (for many values of pencil and quick)
> ADT is getting worse with each release...additional complexity making it
> more difficult to just get the job done.
Not surprised to hear that. Suspect they didn't have the real idea
ironed out when they started and trying to cram it in to ACAD would get
in the way.
- g
| |
|
| "gruhn" <gruhn@rararchitects.com> wrote in message
news:1161386433.589679.300300@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'd say it isn't in the name of those things. The real deal is BIM and
> the root idea there is a good one. I say nothing about specific
> products or their attempts to implement BIM though.
While that's partially true, it's virtually the same thing.
But since you brought up BIM, my argument is the same, only accentuated.
What percentage of us do you suppose will ever use BIM? Even if I practice
another 50 years I will never use BIM.
I guess SOM, Pei, and the other monster firms may go that route some day.
Then they'll have to find consutlants who'll subscribe. And finally the
right builders. But after that, who?
The vast majority of offices -- and I'm talking about over 90% -- will never
have a use for it and will never be asked if they can.
So, regardless of the genesis of its development, I'll bet that virtually
all of the folks who use Revit were likely drawn to it for 3D and automatic
drawing, not BIM.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-10-20, 8:25 pm |
| JD wrote:
> One more thing.
>
> Why all the enamorment over saving keystrokes? I didn't go to college to
> punch a time clock and I certainly didn't go to do piecework.
>
> The real sad thing is that drafting is a lost art. I'm talking about the art
> of puting a set of drawings together that make sense and only say what needs
> to be said.
That's certainly true. It used to be dimension once, specify once,
etc. Now with cut and paste and overuse of autodimensioning it turns
into a jungle. Sorry, circus. ;)
> With each passing day, the percentage of people in the field who have done
> any drafting by hand is dwindling. What's more, I would be shocked if any of
> the guys developing cad software have ever seen a parallel bar or t-square
> in person, let alone used one.
I don't see why this is such a catastrophe. When was the last time you
saw someone whip out a slide rule? Great tool, super efficient,
superceded.
> That's the real problem with all of cad.
>
> That and the over-emphasis on 3D.
>
> I'm not trying to make a "good ol' days" speech, I'm just venting over the
> lack of sense in the tools of the trade.
>
> We used to hire specialists to do renderings. Why the need to give everyone
> the pseudo ability?
Why have everybody able to type up and print their own letters and
documents? Why have everybody Photoshop their pictures instead of
sending them out to be developed and printed? Same reason.
> Cad's #1 function is architecture is producing working drawings. Those
> drawings are then used to make real life buildings. Can anyone tell me why
> the real thing has been shoved in the back seat in favor of pretty pictures?
>
> It's a classic case of wag the dog.
If you're creating CAD drawings/renderings, building the building and
throwing them away, then I would tend to agree with you about the
working drawings. But the renderings are what sell projects. It's
always been that way and always will. If a Renaissance architect could
have created perfectly dimensioned, perfectly proportioned 3D drawings
with photorealistic textures, etc., I'm sure they would have jumped at
the chance..
>From the perspective of the CAD drawing being a tool with great utility
in future remodeling work, then 3D becomes even more useful. Quickly
sketching wiring/plumbing routes through a ghosted 3D model and handing
that to the contractor is far easier than repeatedly walking people
through the building and pointing out obstructions and locations.
In any event, CAD is still developing. Autocad became an industry
standard, helped create common formats and brought computer design out
of its infancy. It's now big, bloated and pissing off its users. So
don't worry, the revolution is in the works.
R
| |
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> Well...
>
> After a disastrous migration from ADT 2006 to ADT 2007, we're going to
> take the Revit plunge. We'll let you know how it goes. We've figured
> that our small office has lot at least 100 hours of productivity because
> of Autocad related bugs and problems.
>
> I'll let you all know how it goes...
ADT 6, ADT 7, Revit, jeez.......$$$$$10k..........
I wish I had lissened to my ol' gray haired pappy and went to arkytek
skool.... LOL
| |
|
| "JD"> wrote
> 1) Place the jambs - 2 lines
> 2) Draw the door perpendicular to the wall (usually) - 1 line
> 3) Draw an arc from the end of the door to the opposite jamb - 1 arc
>
> Voila! One door, 4 elements. Easy, fast, no bugs.
About 10 years ago I stopped doing step 3, and in step 2 I almost always
make the door slab on a 45 degree angle.
It looks sharp and clean.
(those door swing arcs are redundent and always seem to interfere with dims
and notes)
I believe, above all, in making the plans very easy to *read* by meatheads
in the field and elsewhere.
Not very impressed thus far with the automation aspects of the newer CAD
apps.
Does Adesk request input from people on the floor that actually use their
products and know what they're doing?
| |
|
| "JD"> wrote
> One more thing.
>
> Why all the enamorment over saving keystrokes? I didn't go to college to
> punch a time clock and I certainly didn't go to do piecework.
>
> The real sad thing is that drafting is a lost art. I'm talking about the
> art of puting a set of drawings together that make sense and only say what
> needs to be said.
>
> With each passing day, the percentage of people in the field who have done
> any drafting by hand is dwindling. What's more, I would be shocked if any
> of the guys developing cad software have ever seen a parallel bar or
> t-square in person, let alone used one.
>
> That's the real problem with all of cad.
>
> That and the over-emphasis on 3D.
>
> I'm not trying to make a "good ol' days" speech, I'm just venting over the
> lack of sense in the tools of the trade.
>
> We used to hire specialists to do renderings. Why the need to give
> everyone the pseudo ability?
>
> Cad's #1 function is architecture is producing working drawings. Those
> drawings are then used to make real life buildings. Can anyone tell me why
> the real thing has been shoved in the back seat in favor of pretty
> pictures?
>
> It's a classic case of wag the dog.
I pretty much agree with all of the above JD, but at the same time I can't
help but wonder if adhereing to old drafting standards might be holding
progress back?
At some point, I suppose, the Wright Bros had to actually take their feet
off the ground in order to fly.
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ehd2io017nh@news1.newsguy.com...
> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>
> ADT 6, ADT 7, Revit, jeez.......$$$$$10k..........
> I wish I had lissened to my ol' gray haired pappy and went to arkytek
> skool.... LOL
>
>
When I drew with Ink on velum and mylar, I used 3 pen weights only. When I
switched to ACAD I operated the same way. Red, Yellow & Green with a #9
color for halftone if needed. Simple, quick, easy. I recently came across a
set of 24 of my ink drawings of a large building from the 80's and was
impressed how much better and frankly more handsome and clear they were than
ACAD drawings. Now I use ACAD 2004 LT as it does everything I need for
working drawings, and Sketchup for setting up the pretty pictures. (I still
like rendering with pens.) All this other stuff is just yearly upgrading,
like Detroit's metal moving.
I recently have been helping a structural engineer friend who is having
problems interpreting the architect's drawings. They are done with ACAD
2006, and are so sloppy as to be almost unusable. This is a remodeling of
elderly housing. I am embarrassed for my profession after seeing these
drawings by CAD jockeys. GRRRR!
EDS
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-10-22, 3:25 am |
|
"eds"
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ehd2io017nh@news1.newsguy.com...
> When I drew with Ink on velum and mylar, I used 3 pen weights only. When I
> switched to ACAD I operated the same way. Red, Yellow & Green with a #9
> color for halftone if needed. Simple, quick, easy. I recently came across
> a set of 24 of my ink drawings of a large building from the 80's and was
> impressed how much better and frankly more handsome and clear they were
> than ACAD drawings. Now I use ACAD 2004 LT as it does everything I need
> for working drawings, and Sketchup for setting up the pretty pictures. (I
> still like rendering with pens.) All this other stuff is just yearly
> upgrading, like Detroit's metal moving.
>
> I recently have been helping a structural engineer friend who is having
> problems interpreting the architect's drawings. They are done with ACAD
> 2006, and are so sloppy as to be almost unusable. This is a remodeling of
> elderly housing. I am embarrassed for my profession after seeing these
> drawings by CAD jockeys. GRRRR!
> EDS
Seems like the CAD jockeys are swamped in the profit-driven software world.
Let's invest (more) in libre/open source CAD, and set ourselves free.
[color=darkred]
$10k might go a fair bit in getting a programmer(s) to get exactly what you
want when, how and where you need it-- the code there and tweekable to your
modus operandi-- rather like how Don's mentioned having his ACAD set up with
speed in mind. Then, hey, maybe you pass it around and over to 3DP for a try
and/or further enhancements.
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-10-22, 3:25 am |
|
"Don"
> "JD"
>
> I pretty much agree with all of the above JD, but at the same time I can't
> help but wonder if adhereing to old drafting standards might be holding
> progress back?
And keeping some open source software from coming to fruition far sooner.
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-10-22, 3:25 am |
|
"Don"
> "JD"
>
> About 10 years ago I stopped doing step 3, and in step 2 I almost always
> make the door slab on a 45 degree angle.
> It looks sharp and clean.
I'm trying to visualize that and it sounds nice.
> (those door swing arcs are redundent and always seem to interfere with
> dims and notes)
Makes sense.
> Does Adesk request input from people on the floor that actually use their
> products and know what they're doing?
I have my doubts. They might if they were people-driven, rather than
profit-driven.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-22, 9:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> ADT 6, ADT 7, Revit, jeez.......$$$$$10k..........
> I wish I had lissened to my ol' gray haired pappy and went to arkytek
> skool.... LOL
Yeah...it's expensive. Only the initial cash layout, back at ADT 3.3.
The rest has been the annual protection money (also known as subscription).
In spite of it's problems, I think ADT 3.3 was probably the best of the
implementations. Everything since has been "better" but we've not been
any more productive.
The reason for having to upgrade? At one point it was because of the
consultants and outside firms we were working with. It's to the point
where you must upgrade or lose file format compatibility. Autodesk has
everyone by the short hairs with their close file formats. I remember
the short lived "OpenDWG" effort...squashed by Autodesk.
Before ADT, we used ArchT. It is always faster to use wall & window
objects than it is to use two lines & hatching...when we went to ADT
3.3, that's when our productivity really went up. Schedules were neat
-n- tidy, quick to make changes in plans (always coordination issues,
with sections & elevations, but that never goes away).
Then, Autodesk thought they'd change the user interface...to make it
better. And the file format, to make it better. We've noticed that
"making it better" has made things worse.
And in switching to Revit....it's not the fancy 3D stuff we're after.
We're after efficient production of drawings...we're in this to make as
much money as possible. For 3D, we use sketchup or pen & paper. We're
just tired of AutoCAD getting worse with each iteration...more things to
break, more complexity to the program, changes in file formats and user
interface (why mess with the icons?...you get a visual memory for what
it looks like and then it gets changed for the sake of change to
something less intuitive!?!?!)
In truth, if was supported and available, I'd use HOK drawVision...it
still beats the pants off Revit, AutoCAD and all the rest....and it's
UNIX parent, draw! was even better!
| |
|
| > problems interpreting the architect's drawings. They are done with ACAD
> 2006, and are so sloppy as to be almost unusable. This is a remodeling of
> elderly housing. I am embarrassed for my profession after seeing these
> drawings by CAD jockeys. GRRRR!
Boss picked up a job once that had been drawn apparently with crayon on
trace by a respected elder architect. Yes, final CDs as submitted to
the city.
| |
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> We're after efficient production of drawings...we're in this to make as
> much money as possible.
Greedy, selfish, capitalist dawgs! LOL
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-23, 9:25 am |
| Don wrote:
> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>
> Greedy, selfish, capitalist dawgs! LOL
You call those insults?
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:Xz8_g.15$x87.2@newsfe06.lga...
> Well...
>
> After a disastrous migration from ADT 2006 to ADT 2007, we're going to
> take the Revit plunge. We'll let you know how it goes. We've figured
> that our small office has lot at least 100 hours of productivity because
> of Autocad related bugs and problems.
>
> I'll let you all know how it goes...
>
> P
>
>
I wish you luck.
Our boss is playing with revit, and wants badly for me to replace out
AutoCAD systems with it.
I keep telling him...we are a residential firm. We don't even need 3D, our
clients certainly don't want to pay for 3D. Why he continues to scream
production and revit in the same breathe I do not know.
70% of our work is builder work, they do not want to pay for 3D, they want
well developed construction documents.
Even our commercial stuff does not rate the time and expense to upgrade and
train. (BTW, his idea of training is you learn it at home on your own and
come to work knowing what you need to know.)
We are currently using AutoCAD 2006. 2007 is here, but I have not loaded it
yet.
jojo
| |
|
|
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:wIc_g.156$s6.19@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> One more thing.
>
> Why all the enamorment over saving keystrokes? I didn't go to college to
> punch a time clock and I certainly didn't go to do piecework.
The idea is that the less time you spend drafting the more time you spend
designing.
Ain't true, you just get to draft more.
Can't get a check till the CD's are plotted.
Remember the models of the future from the 50's. Push a button to do your
work and have more leisure time.
Nope, push a button to do your work and do more work.
There are people in the world who count every keystroke and mouse click.
Seriously.
jojo
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-23, 1:25 pm |
| jojo wrote:
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
> news:Xz8_g.15$x87.2@newsfe06.lga...
>
> I wish you luck.
>
> Our boss is playing with revit, and wants badly for me to replace out
> AutoCAD systems with it.
> I keep telling him...we are a residential firm. We don't even need 3D, our
> clients certainly don't want to pay for 3D. Why he continues to scream
> production and revit in the same breathe I do not know.
Yeah...Revit does 3D...blah blah blah. So does ADT. But 3D, for now,
aren't CDs.
The firm I used to work for here in town switched from ADT to Revit.
The CAD jocks hated the transition...too many of them were too trained
in AutoCAD and not in construction documents (huge difference in mindset
- in the one you are all about program, in the other you're all about
productive work with a program). Apparently, though, they've weathered
the change and increased productivity. They don't do the 3D stuff
either...except if they "have to" for a client.
>
> 70% of our work is builder work, they do not want to pay for 3D, they want
> well developed construction documents.
> Even our commercial stuff does not rate the time and expense to upgrade and
> train. (BTW, his idea of training is you learn it at home on your own and
> come to work knowing what you need to know.)
What has peaked my interest is the ability to get better coordinated
construction documents. We've lost a lot of time because of bugs and
changes in work flow that we don't care if we lose 2 more weeks to
retrain ourselves.
>
> We are currently using AutoCAD 2006. 2007 is here, but I have not loaded it
> yet.
Don't load it and plan on using it for productive work:
1) Problem with views in to sheets - they don't work. It's a known bug
without a decent solution (Adesk offers to privately email the patch,
but that worries me even more).
2) Backwards compatibility is broken. 2007 files only open in later
versions if you explode everything.
3) Other bugs that are difficult to describe/explain but happen.
4) Adesk is recommending you rebuild your office standards from scratch
in 2007 rather than just port them over. Do you have time to spend a
week or two redoing project/drawing/sheet templates?
I'd wait until SP2 of ADT2007 comes out, or 2008. Don't do 2007. It's
the mess with 2007 that's got us looking at Revit.
P
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ehd30l018ln@news1.newsguy.com...
> "JD"> wrote
>
> About 10 years ago I stopped doing step 3, and in step 2 I almost always
> make the door slab on a 45 degree angle.
> It looks sharp and clean.
> (those door swing arcs are redundent and always seem to interfere with
> dims and notes)
> I believe, above all, in making the plans very easy to *read* by meatheads
> in the field and elsewhere.
> Not very impressed thus far with the automation aspects of the newer CAD
> apps.
> Does Adesk request input from people on the floor that actually use their
> products and know what they're doing?
I think the swing is necessary. Sometimes you want to show a 180 swing,
sometimes double-acting.
You know I never try to belittle you because you're a house guy, but you
tend to run into more justification for the arc in commercial work.
Mainly, I prefer the arc because it makes it clear that it's a door. Not to
mention that it's been the standard for generations.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-23, 8:25 pm |
| "JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:wIc_g.156$s6.19@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
> One more thing.
>
> Why all the enamorment over saving keystrokes? I didn't go to college
> to punch a time clock and I certainly didn't go to do piecework.
>
> The real sad thing is that drafting is a lost art. I'm talking about
> the art of puting a set of drawings together that make sense and only
> say what needs to be said.
>
> With each passing day, the percentage of people in the field who have
> done any drafting by hand is dwindling. What's more, I would be
> shocked if any of the guys developing cad software have ever seen a
> parallel bar or t-square in person, let alone used one.
>
> That's the real problem with all of cad.
>
> That and the over-emphasis on 3D.
>
> I'm not trying to make a "good ol' days" speech, I'm just venting over
> the lack of sense in the tools of the trade.
From a purely graphics standpoint, I actually agree with you. 2D and 3D
are pretty much apples and oranges - for 2D, a Draw/Vector type program
is best; for 3D, a dedicated 3D program is best. Some 2D things can be
done OK in 3D, if the goal is to get to a 3D object at the end -
otherwise, best to use the "right tool for the right job".
> We used to hire specialists to do renderings. Why the need to give
> everyone the pseudo ability?
Job creation - when these things become too complex to be useable, it
means that bevvies of technicians and "help desk" talkers have to be
hired just so poeple can use what they've bought...
If you've ever seen "The Fifth Element", think of Zorg's speech to
Cornelius - that said it all!
> Cad's #1 function is architecture is producing working drawings. Those
> drawings are then used to make real life buildings. Can anyone tell me
> why the real thing has been shoved in the back seat in favor of pretty
> pictures?
>
> It's a classic case of wag the dog.
Nothing wrong with visualization (of course I'm going to say that <g!> ),
*however*, the good point about hiring a specialist *when needed* is,
the work will (supposedly at least) be top-quality. When people who
only rarely use 3D tools are forced to take time away form what their
actual job functions are, and spend those trying to figure out the
tinker-toys jury-rigged willy-nilly onto the butt-ends of 2D programs,
well, the end product will reflect that.
Unfortunately, the people running the majority of software companies
don't seem to know squat about much of anything realted to the actual
day to day real-world uses of their programs.
[snip][color=darkred]
And visa-versa. It's IMO no different from trying to make a widget that
"allows you draw, and then sculpt, too!" In the end, pens/pencils/etc
are for drawing, and sculpting tools are for sculpting. IMO, people who
try to combine to two are only doing so because they're obsessed with
making everything "new and improved and shiny" so as to rook newbies
into believing they *must* have every tool possible, regardelss of how
many of those tools are things they'll never use. In the meanwhile,
those same software companies/developers totally forget about the people
who are actually using their products as part of their profession. IOW,
they alienate the professional core just to rook in a few newbies - as
tho' they never plan beyond next week. All-too-typically short-
sighted...
| |
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> You call those insults?
They would be, if I wasn't one too!
| |
|
|
"JD" <laughingarchitectNOSPAM@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Dq8%g.661$s6.392@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:ehd30l018ln@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> I think the swing is necessary. Sometimes you want to show a 180 swing,
> sometimes double-acting.
>
> You know I never try to belittle you because you're a house guy, but you
> tend to run into more justification for the arc in commercial work.
>
> Mainly, I prefer the arc because it makes it clear that it's a door. Not
> to mention that it's been the standard for generations.
Standards, schmandards. LOL
If its not a door, what else could it be, setting there all pretty in that
door opening?
I watched, for decades it seems, people label tubs, toilets (wc), sinks,
etc.....
I mean, really, how many thing in a building look like a sink/tub/toilet
already?
......and then they have undecipherable dimension swings all over the place
with extension lines out to here.
My plans are so uncluttered, well organized, that it would take a supreme
effort to confuse my doors with anything else.
BTW: Standard swing doors are drawn with plines 1.5" wide, the widest lines
I use except for the border.
But I get your point about more complex commercial jobs.
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ehi9gm0126n@news3.newsguy.com...
> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>
> Greedy, selfish, capitalist dawgs! LOL
>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
......................................................................repent!
....now where did those virgins go?
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-25, 5:25 pm |
| 3D Peruna <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in
news:cL7%g.13$YA6.4@newsfe05.lga:
> jojo wrote:
>
> Yeah...Revit does 3D...blah blah blah. So does ADT. But 3D, for now,
> aren't CDs.
>
> The firm I used to work for here in town switched from ADT to Revit.
> The CAD jocks hated the transition...too many of them were too trained
> in AutoCAD and not in construction documents (huge difference in
> mindset - in the one you are all about program, in the other you're
> all about productive work with a program). Apparently, though,
> they've weathered the change and increased productivity. They don't
> do the 3D stuff either...except if they "have to" for a client.
OK, this is prob a dopey question, but here goes.
Most 3D programs can import various 2D formats. So, why not save the 2D
drawings (when/if you need 3D), and send them to a 3D modeler to extrude
and work up?
IOW, OK, take the floor-plan drawing, for the sake of convenience Ill
cite DXF - so, you save as DXF, send to the 3D people. They inmport the
DXF, select face, extrude. Then, place 2nd floor plan on top of 1st,
select, extrude. Subtract out the doorways.
Then (in 3D prog), your 3D Doodz could take the elevation DXFs, place
onto a second layer, lock the layer, go back to Layer1, subtract outside
openings from the extruded walls using the elevations as guides. lock
layer, go back to layer two, and then select various bits of the
elevation DXF for extrusion to create the outside.
Alternately, if the faces are "messed up", just model the various bits
on a new layer, using the elevation DXFs on the second locked layer.
It shouldn't take all that long given that the elevations would be
available, which would cut out all the math required when one is trying
to model something to-scale using only photos and ruler scored in 100ths
of an inch.
To get, for example, sill measurement, just go to the elevation DXF,
select the sill line, and voila, there is the length.
Anyhoo, the thing being, 3D programs are made for modeling, texturing,
and *lighting* 3D objects. The methodology for 3D modeling is just not
the same as is the methodology for creating 2D to-scale plans and
documents.
So why even have what supposedly passes for 3D in a prog designed for
creating 2D production documents...?
I guess I'm just dense - because I don't understand. 3D people spend
their time learning 3D, so it seems kind of goody to expect 2D people to
suddenly switch gears (because the two *are* very different).
>
> What has peaked my interest is the ability to get better coordinated
> construction documents. We've lost a lot of time because of bugs and
> changes in work flow that we don't care if we lose 2 more weeks to
> retrain ourselves.
And it seems to me that, even if you wanted 3D, it's cost *more* to make
your 2D people take time away from what they're trained to do and are
supposed to do, and fumble through 3D that in any event won't be as good
as what an actual 3D modeler would produce...
Well, but I'm just rambling, I guess...
>
> Don't load it and plan on using it for productive work:
>
> 1) Problem with views in to sheets - they don't work. It's a known
> bug without a decent solution (Adesk offers to privately email the
> patch, but that worries me even more).
>
> 2) Backwards compatibility is broken. 2007 files only open in later
> versions if you explode everything.
>
> 3) Other bugs that are difficult to describe/explain but happen.
>
> 4) Adesk is recommending you rebuild your office standards from
> scratch in 2007 rather than just port them over. Do you have time to
> spend a week or two redoing project/drawing/sheet templates?
>
> I'd wait until SP2 of ADT2007 comes out, or 2008. Don't do 2007.
> It's the mess with 2007 that's got us looking at Revit.
>
> P
>
>
| |
| marcenmoni@cpu-net.net 2006-10-25, 8:25 pm |
|
3D Peruna wrote:
> Well...
>
> After a disastrous migration from ADT 2006 to ADT 2007, we're going to
> take the Revit plunge. We'll let you know how it goes. We've figured
> that our small office has lot at least 100 hours of productivity because
> of Autocad related bugs and problems.
>
> I'll let you all know how it goes...
>
> P
I've been looking at Revit, and now Archicad and Vectorworks. My
interest is not the BIM, but the coordination between plan, section and
elevation. On the 3 story 11,000 sf house, handling changes was a royal
pain and I wanted to provide more sections for clarity, or even a
hidden line dwg of the interior. Having a program that works ties 3D to
plans or sections would have been a fine feature.
But the drafting/detailing aspects leave me cold. And I'm not sure to
what extent updating a detail carries through on the model. And I'm not
sure to what extent you have control over the sheets and their number;
(we always try and save a sheet).
I agree with JD that drawings nowadays are way overboard on repetitive
and unneeded info. I don't call out fixtures on plans; the graphic
should be sufficient. For the residential stuff, we place the door and
window call outs by the doors and windows, avoiding schedules which I
find to be a timewaster.
One thing I have done is have a layout plan, and a separate floor plan
for notes. This worked well on the 3 story house; the plans were easy
to read.
Myself, I would like to go to 1/2 size sets rather than 24 x 36, with
cleaner plans and less paper. If I could get away with a nearly line
diagram schematic plans and handle all else as details, that would be
great. Especially for residential additions, which is where the use of
Revit would be a time waster. To have to set up the existing house
could take as much time as doing the actual 2d drafting, and then some.
But maybe in a few years the 3d-to-2d connection will such that that it
will be easier to input existing buildings and spaces, and also be
sufficiently open to tweaking the drafting aspects (like only lower
case text- we never use caps; lower case is much easier to read).
For now I'm toying with the idea of using 3/4" scale cutaway
section/elevations as a way to do wall sections, masonry details, jamb
details, header details and footing details all in one drawing. That
would a be good time and papersaver for our residential stuff.
Marcello
| |
|
| <marcenmoni> wrote
> One thing I have done is have a layout plan, and a separate floor plan
> for notes. This worked well on the 3 story house; the plans were easy
> to read.
I've been doing that for years on all but the most simplistic plans.
I call them:
Floor Plan - Dimensional
Floor Plan - Schematic
The dimensional plan has all dimensions, room names & ceiling conditions.
The schematic plan has room names & ceiling conditions too, and all the
door/window designations, and all the various notes and misc info.
To me the dimensions are the most important part of a plan and I pay close
attention to making them properly (proper drafting techniques, JD! heh) and
easy to read/understand by even the most basic construction worker. I'm not
going to say my dimensions are always perfect (though acad certainly
eliminates most of the chances for error) but I have several long term
clients that openly proclaim frequently that they have never found a
dimensional error on my plans in over 20 years.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-26, 1:25 pm |
| marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
> I've been looking at Revit, and now Archicad and Vectorworks. My
> interest is not the BIM, but the coordination between plan, section and
> elevation. On the 3 story 11,000 sf house, handling changes was a royal
> pain and I wanted to provide more sections for clarity, or even a
> hidden line dwg of the interior. Having a program that works ties 3D to
> plans or sections would have been a fine feature.
That's one of the things that's on the list...some relative coordination
between plan/section/elevation.
>
> But the drafting/detailing aspects leave me cold. And I'm not sure to
> what extent updating a detail carries through on the model. And I'm not
> sure to what extent you have control over the sheets and their number;
> (we always try and save a sheet).
The drafting stuff is probably the most challenging aspect. Autodesk
does offer a version called "Revit Series"...which is Revit w/ plain
AutoCAD. It's a license of both (and the attached subscription). This
way, you could detail in AutoCAD and do the rest in Revit. It's the
detail stuff that we've been most challenged about.
The sheet control looks to be pretty good. I think you can even save
out a sheet to a DWG (but don't quote me on that).
>
> I agree with JD that drawings nowadays are way overboard on repetitive
> and unneeded info. I don't call out fixtures on plans; the graphic
> should be sufficient. For the residential stuff, we place the door and
> window call outs by the doors and windows, avoiding schedules which I
> find to be a timewaster.
Most of the contractors around here want to send a copy of the window
schedule to several window rep's, and they'd prefer to have a schedule.
The field guys would prefer the windows on the plan... So, you either
make the field guy happy or the boss man happy...
>
> One thing I have done is have a layout plan, and a separate floor plan
> for notes. This worked well on the 3 story house; the plans were easy
> to read.
>
> Myself, I would like to go to 1/2 size sets rather than 24 x 36, with
> cleaner plans and less paper. If I could get away with a nearly line
> diagram schematic plans and handle all else as details, that would be
> great. Especially for residential additions, which is where the use of
> Revit would be a time waster. To have to set up the existing house
> could take as much time as doing the actual 2d drafting, and then some.
We're trying to do 11x17s as much as possible. One local jursidiction
won't accept final permit plans, even for large projects on 24x36...they
only want half size. They can't store the crap anymore and are trying
to cut down on it (and they don't want to microfilm it all, either).
> But maybe in a few years the 3d-to-2d connection will such that that it
> will be easier to input existing buildings and spaces, and also be
> sufficiently open to tweaking the drafting aspects (like only lower
> case text- we never use caps; lower case is much easier to read).
Revit will let you set your own standards pretty well...
| |
| marcenmoni@cpu-net.net 2006-10-26, 1:25 pm |
|
Don wrote:
> <marcenmoni> wrote
>
> I've been doing that for years on all but the most simplistic plans.
> I call them:
> Floor Plan - Dimensional
> Floor Plan - Schematic
Reading your reply, I realized that I had been actually doing the same
thing from my days (10+ years ago) doing Versace stores. Though the
drawings were only preliminary/design development level drawings (to be
given to local architects to adjust as needed for permit drawings), I
figured splitting the info was helpful; especially since working in
existing conditions, you always had to indicate hold dimensions and
adjustable dimensions.
>
> The dimensional plan has all dimensions, room names & ceiling conditions.
> The schematic plan has room names & ceiling conditions too, and all the
> door/window designations, and all the various notes and misc info.
>
> To me the dimensions are the most important part of a plan and I pay close
> attention to making them properly (proper drafting techniques, JD! heh) and
> easy to read/understand by even the most basic construction worker. I'm not
> going to say my dimensions are always perfect (though acad certainly
> eliminates most of the chances for error) but I have several long term
> clients that openly proclaim frequently that they have never found a
> dimensional error on my plans in over 20 years.
Before my stint in Italy I worked in an office were one of the
draftsman, doing work by hand, was always having difficulty 'closing'
the perimeter. So I would put it on CAD and close it for her,
discovering the mistakes she did. Sometimes, things were off by several
feet- a nightmare.
Marcello
| |
| marcenmoni@cpu-net.net 2006-10-26, 1:25 pm |
|
3D Peruna wrote:
> marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
>
> Most of the contractors around here want to send a copy of the window
> schedule to several window rep's, and they'd prefer to have a schedule.
> The field guys would prefer the windows on the plan... So, you either
> make the field guy happy or the boss man happy...
If a GC or window rep can't make a list of 20 windows or doors from a
simple set of plans, they shouldn't be in business! I've even had fire
marshall/plan reviewers ask for door schedules, when there are maybe
4-5 doors? In those cases we use door notes, and I direct them to the
notes, where everything is described.
I will do schedules only for complicated or large jobs. The 3 story
house had a boat load of windows and doors, and a schedule was handy
there, though still a pain to keep up to date.
I prefer to 'cater' to the field guy. There is so much that often has
to be decided in the field (no set of drawings can capture every
detail) that I prefer to be clear for the sitework. Of course this
applies to residential, more so than commercial.
I had the opportunity once to layout the 6 story Versace store in
Manhattan with the site super. It took 3 days and was an illuminating
experience. Dimensioning to the side of the wall stud, and dimensioning
to the same side across a string of dimensions, is the best way to
avoid plan layout errors.... for complicated plans anyway.
Keep us posted on Revit. I am definitely curious.
Marcello
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-26, 5:25 pm |
| marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
> 3D Peruna wrote:
[color=darkred]
>
> Keep us posted on Revit. I am definitely curious.
>
Certainly will... It's been paid for and, as they say "in the mail."
First update, I did set up our titleblock in about a couple of hours.
Mostly just trying to get used to user interface. Sheets automatically
pull in project information (change it in one place, all sheets
automatically updated). So far (and it's our fault), the challenge has
been recreating our logo. We used to use a JPG, but then when gradiant
fills were available in Autocad, we went to an actual AutoCAD block. We
need to be able to recreate our logo in Revit, using Revit entities, if
possible (although their tutorial recommends just using an actual
graphic). I still have a few questions/issues with it. For instance,
we work in several states and would like the titleblock to have some
options, depending on how that state prefers it's seal (some just want
text with a signature, some accept electronic seals and some require wet
seals...what a pain). I'm sure we can do it, it's just a matter of
working it out.
For the record, ADT claims the capability to do this, too...but due to
bugging programming, it doesn't work.
| |
|
| > I keep telling him...we are a residential firm. We don't even need 3D, our
> clients certainly don't want to pay for 3D. Why he continues to scream
> production and revit in the same breathe I do not know.
Because you don't understand what Revit is for, because you understand
but disagree as to its capability, or other?
| |
|
| > interest is not the BIM, but the coordination between plan, section and
> elevation.
OK, I'm confused, because I think you just said you don't care about A
but are interested in A.
|
|
|
|
|