topic Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD! in Modeling

ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:55:28 GMT

I have only been using ArchiCAD for a few months after using AUtoCAd for ten years and so far I am finding it far worse than AutoCAD, I have to say.

Why anyone would actually choose to use this program over AutoCAD is beyond me especially as drawing 3d architecture is just plain ridiculous IMO!!

I mean does anyone here actually draw architecture in 3d? Because I find the 3d library so limiting in terms of my design wishes. What do I do if I want a certain glass staircase or somethign else that isnt in the library? Surely not design a new 3d model of it!?

And how can you draw a site using different levels, manholes, car spaces, drives etc all at different levels in 3d?

This whole fascination with 3d in architectrure really loses me - I just dont see the point in it and it definitely limits your design ability to waht is in the software.

Give me AutoCAD anytime!!

Anyone with any argument for using it? Please only respond if you are someone who isnt just doing houses or venacular buildings but 'proper' architecture!

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:04:21 GMT

nats-

no offense, but this argument has occurred many times here before - try a search for the topic, and I'm sure you'll get all the responses you need.

Really, ArchiCAD is a different tool to get to the same result. If you don't know how to use it properly, you won't see the productivity or design quality you're after (same goes for a pencil or AutoCAD, BTW). Get some training - it'll make a world of difference.

There are many award winning architecture firms out there using the software, doing all sorts of styles.

Welcome to Archicad-talk!

Wes

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

andrewzarb — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:24:53 GMT

Maybe I don't understand but I think it's a liitle strange, you seem to pooh pooh the very things that I do with ArchiCAD and at the same time I wonder how you possibly achieve those things with Autocad?

Do you model glass stairs in 3D with Autocad? I model all sorts of stairs in ArchiCAD quite often.

Do you model your sites in 3D with Autocad? I've just finished a set of drawings where we modelled the streets and neighbouring buildings as well as the beach, water and an island. Then we designed the building, a lot in 3D, and we could see the views from and to the building. I think it may count as real architecture?

And I absolutely think that 3D is the place to be, I live in four (or more) dimensions it's nice to design in three of them.

Of course ArchiCAD is only a tool and if you don't like it you don't have to use it.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:47:07 GMT

andrewzarb wrote:
Maybe I don't understand but I think it's a liitle strange, you seem to pooh pooh the very things that I do with ArchiCAD and at the same time I wonder how you possibly achieve those things with Autocad?

Do you model glass stairs in 3D with Autocad? I model all sorts of stairs in ArchiCAD quite often.

Do you model your sites in 3D with Autocad?

The whole point of my post is why would I ever want to use 3d to model architecture when its far quicker doing it in 2d? I can draw anything I want in 2d in five minutes. I cant model anything I want in 3d without setting aside a load of time and research for something that I may only want to appear in one drawing or may never even see.

I like 3d in films etc but I dont think its necessary to use it in architecture at all. And I find it extremely limiting in terms of efficient output compared to AutoCAD.

Im not a computer whizzkid all I want to do is draw architecture. If I dont use the roof tool for a day I forget how to do it next time. I cant find exactly the object I want to use. And I personally think the elevations and details produced are quite laughable and the 3d images quite horrific
as produced in ArchiCAD. Theres no way they will ever look as nice as a 2d drawing can look.

I dont care about doing perspectives, modellers will do all that for me.

So again I ask why use ArchiCAD for normal everyday architectural design?

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

TomWaltz — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:01:32 GMT

nats wrote:
The whole point of my post is why would I ever want to use 3d to model architecture when its far quicker doing it in 2d? I can draw anything I want in 2d in five minutes. I cant model anything I want in 3d without setting aside a load of time and research for something that I may only want to appear in one drawing or may never even see.

OK, draw me a 12,000 square meter building in 5 minutes: GO!!!! Hmm... maybe you cannot draw "anything" in 5 minutes.

About modeling, I think you have confused "I can't" with "Others can't". It's kind of funny whenever someone tells me they can draw faster than I can model (or others can model), then I routinely see them get dusted when it comes to productivity and work completed. In most design situations, modeling proves dramatically faster.

Now, I must agree if you are only seeing it in 1 drawing, it would not make sense to model it. If you see something in multiple drawings, then it would make more sense to model it once and know that those other drawings all match, especially when it comes to revisions during the design process and/or when multiple people are working on the project and may or may not know all the drawings that are affected.

My general guideline for modeling has always been "Model elements that are visible in a 1/4" = 1'-0" scale drawing (1:50) and are visible in more than one drawing".

It often comes down to experience. Someone improperly trained or who has little experience on a program is going to be slower at it than someone who has training and experience, whether it's Autocad, Archicad, Final Cut Pro, Adobe CS, or any other full-featured professional software.

You complain about research... isn't that part of "proper architecture"? Finding out how something is built/installed, then making sure it fits into your design?

It sounds to me more like you are more frustrated with the complexities of Archicad and the difficulties in learning how to use it to maximum advantage than with BIM and modeling in general.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

andrewzarb — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:19:20 GMT

nats wrote:
So again I ask why use ArchiCAD for normal everyday architectural design?

Nats

Everyone needs to answer that question for themselves if they haven't already.

I have used ArchiCAD since 1991, every working day, and I have seen many architects eyes open wide as they see their designs come to life in 3D. Sometimes even exclaim, "so that's what it looks like!"
I know that when I walk through a building I have modelled it looks as I expected and that's what I like, no surprises. I think clients like that too.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:32:12 GMT

TomWaltz wrote:
It often comes down to experience. Someone improperly trained or who has little experience on a program is going to be slower at it than someone who has training and experience, whether it's Autocad, Archicad, Final Cut Pro, Adobe CS, or any other full-featured professional software.

It sounds to me more like you are more frustrated with the complexities of Archicad and the difficulties in learning how to use it to maximum advantage than with BIM and modeling in general.

Well thats the crux of the matter isnt it. I have started in a firm that uses ArchiCAD. I havent been trained in it past a 1 day seminar which touched on the basics. And now I have to design complex buildings with the system. Now this would be piossible in AutoCAD because once you know how to draw a line, a circle etc you can do anything. But with ArchiCAD (and probably other BIM programs) if you dont know exactly how to do it you cant possible guess. You either know it or you dont.

And this is the problem. That without a load of training I will not even get close to managing with this program. For firms also surely its a matter of either training people up and get them proficient by paying loads for it only for them to leave and have to do it again - or go the easy route and use a 2d package that every one can become quite proficient in very quickly.

I have loads of arguments for not going down the 3d/BIM route but am finding it idifficult to find one strong overriding reason to use it except perhaps for house designers and vernacular architects who rarely do anything out of the ordinary and therefore can stick to the generic library.

Now I can possibly see a time in the future, if manufacturers were ever to get involved and start producing proper 3d objects of their products, that 3d could really take off. But I would estiamte that either being well of (several years at elast) or pie in the sky!

AutoCAD is the market standard, everyone can use it, you have no problems getting staff, its quick and simple, and very flexible. Im sure all this has been said before here. Im not trying to convert you lot. I'm just trying to get a bead on why I should dedicate my time to learning it when Im never ever likely to need it apart from in my present firm and AutoCAD seems to do everything I want. And it doesnt tie me down to designing in one way which is what ArchiCAD is doing by the very nature of its limitations.

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

TomWaltz — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:41:04 GMT

nats wrote:
I have loads of arguments for not going down the 3d/BIM route but am finding it idifficult to find one strong overriding reason to use it except perhaps for house designers and vernacular architects who rarely do anything out of the ordinary and therefore can stick to the generic library.

What kind of architectural situations/designs are you having problems with? Do you have something specific you could use help with?

While Graphisoft is not the best at providing help, this forum is. When presenting a challenge, you can often come away with a couple different approaches to try out. If there is a real barrier (like curved profiles), at the very least you can get some ideas of how to get around the problem.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:50:42 GMT

TomWaltz wrote:
nats wrote:
I have loads of arguments for not going down the 3d/BIM route but am finding it idifficult to find one strong overriding reason to use it except perhaps for house designers and vernacular architects who rarely do anything out of the ordinary and therefore can stick to the generic library.
What kind of architectural situations/designs are you having problems with? Do you have something specific you could use help with?

While Graphisoft is not the best at providing help, this forum is. When presenting a challenge, you can often come away with a couple different approaches to try out. If there is a real barrier (like curved profiles), at the very least you can get some ideas of how to get around the problem.

The sad fact is I dont know what to say I am having a problem with other than all of it. I can't do the slighest thing in the program yet. Even finding the display settings in AC10 has me at a loss. I spent an hour today trying to figure out why a line wasnt showing thickness correctly! I still dont know.

The whole program is just so user unfriendly! I was a master at AutoCAD and yet now I feel that I know absolutely nothing! I cant possibly see how I can design propoerly without a massive knowledge of this program.

And the fact is I just cant spend that kind of time when I have so much else to be doing. And one of my beefs about all of this is why the hell should I have to learn all this when I am here to design real buildings not model virtual playthings!

Its frustrating!!

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:54:04 GMT

andrewzarb wrote:
nats wrote:
So again I ask why use ArchiCAD for normal everyday architectural design?

Nats
Everyone needs to answer that question for themselves if they haven't already.

I have used ArchiCAD since 1991, every working day, and I have seen many architects eyes open wide as they see their designs come to life in 3D. Sometimes even exclaim, "so that's what it looks like!"
I know that when I walk through a building I have modelled it looks as I expected and that's what I like, no surprises. I think clients like that too.

Youre obviously not an architect!

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Rakela Raul — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:59:48 GMT

i just came back from a two weeks vacation and i had the opportunity to play some more with AC10...all i have to say to you is that you are using the best or one the best architectural software in the market...of course,
thinking 3d and knowing a little bit of construction is a must.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:08:58 GMT

Rakela wrote:
i just came back from a two weeks vacation and i had the opportunity to play some more with AC10...all i have to say to you is that you are using the best or one the best architectural software in the market...of course,
thinking 3d and knowing a little bit of construction is a must.

Thats a little vague! You should have said 'in your opinon' its the best. But either way you didnt say why it is the best.

Dont get me wrong I dont like AutoCAD that much either. And Microstation wasnt all that brilliant. But at least I could do what I needed to with them!

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Petros Ioannou — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:24:26 GMT

Well it is no suprise that being an AutoCAD guru doesn't make you an ArchiCAD guru .
It is not only a different software-"brand" but a completely different software category. Besides they both have "CAD" in their name and they both are capable of producing architectural drawings (among other things) they don't have anything else in common.
I agree with nats frustration that you cannot model the exact element (furniture?) in your design in a few minutes, but isn't that a problem in every 3d application? You don't have to model in 3d everything unless you want to present 3d models to your clients... in that case you have to spent time in modeling.
If your aim is just to produce a section/elevation of the element do it exactly as you would do it in AutoCAD.
As for the pen weight go to on-screen view options you will find it there...it is something similar as the LWT button on the bottom of the AutoCAD screen..
Petros

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:43:22 GMT

nats wrote:
I havent been trained in it past a 1 day seminar which touched on the basics. And now I have to design complex buildings with the system. Now this would be piossible in AutoCAD because once you know how to draw a line, a circle etc you can do anything. But with ArchiCAD (and probably other BIM programs) if you dont know exactly how to do it you cant possible guess. You either know it or you dont.

I understand your frustration. One day is not enough to learn any sophisticated software. For ArchiCAD it is little more than a demo. It seems that your employer expects that you will just figure it out as you go along. Good luck. Many have managed this trick but it will be painful at times.

I have noticed lately how many highly skilled AutoCAD users have forgotten how long it took them to get that way. Of course VB/BIM modelers have become MUCH more complex and sophisticated over the years, so the two days training that used to be standard no longer seems sufficient. But as I recall the typical basic training for AutoCAD was two weeks (last I knew). In two weeks of solid training I am sure that any skilled Architect could learn ArchiCAD quite well.

There are many arguments in favor of the virtual building approach, but I haven't the time to repeat them here. It does represent a major change in work process from manual drafting and 2D CAD (which are very similar), and firms that switch from AutoCAD to any building modeler (assuming they were fairly efficient) will experience a temporary drop in productivity as their people get up to speed, but it is the direction that everyone is going. Since Autodesk started promoting Revit the switch seems inevitable.

I think you would do well to take the time and get up to speed on ArchiCAD or Revit since there will be fewer and fewer positions for AutoCAD drafters in the future.

BTW, I still think that REAL Architecture (at the preliminary stage where the real design happens) is faster by hand. I have never had much use for 2D CAD.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:46:32 GMT

Seems to me that ArchiCAD isnt a real 3d program at all. If all you are doing is the plan in 3d with normal drawings of elevations and details then it must be considered a semi-3d program. But I can understand this as I cant see any 3d program ever being able to generate proper drawn elevations and details without having to almost build the entire building yourself first albeit in 3d on a computer! Architects are never going to have that amount of time!

And heres a question - if AC10 is supposed to have all the drawings together in one file where on earth do you place the site survey drawing? And what do you show on the site plan. And if you want to show the site plan with the roof plan on it how do you do it if the ground floor plan is on the site plan?

And then do you usually model the site flat or with proper gradients shown in 3d?

And how can you distinguish layers when they arent shown by colour?

I guess at some point I am going to just have to get some training and jump right in the deep end and try to do a full 3D project but how I am going to find time to do that I've no idea.

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

owen — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:08:30 GMT

[Edit: meh 1:30am ... spelling aint good at the best of times]

nats wrote:
I have only been using ArchiCAD for a few months after using AUtoCAd for ten years and so far I am finding it far worse than AutoCAD, I have to say.

Why anyone would actually choose to use this program over AutoCAD is beyond me especially as drawing 3d architecture is just plain ridiculous IMO!!

Please only respond if you are someone who isn’t just doing houses or venacular buildings but 'proper' architecture!

There have been a few more responses since I started this (working too) but I will keep most of what I had written anyway.

Nat first I hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. It sounds like you may have been put in a situation with unrealistic expectations of what you have to produce given the amount of experience you have with the program. I've seen it happen here too so I know how stressed people can get.

Archicad is a very complex program (for very complex buildings), but I think it has levels of complexity you can ease into. Training is very important so you should definitely ask (well demand really ) for more ... 1 day is not nearly enough. Sitting near a more experienced user to make quick questions easier is a good way to back this up too.

Now on to what i had written ..

There is a fundamental difference in concept between Autocad and Archicad.

Autocad is essentially using a computer to replace the pen/pencil in the production of 2D 'paper' drawings. Lets take the example of a simple wall with a door in it. You draw some lines in plan, and again for every elevation/section where you see that wall. There is nothing else to it other than 'dumb' lines.

Archicad (and other BIM solutions like Revit) is about creating a database of information used to describe the building. The 3D model is just the interface for this process. In Archicad that wall with a door is more than just lines on a page - it is a virtual wall with a door in it. If you stretch the wall or resize the window every single view of that wall on every drawing sheet is automatically updated. I guarantee you I can draw a wall with a window on plan quicker than you could in Autocad. My elevations/sections are done before you even get started on them in Autocad.

Thats just the 'drawing' part.

Archicad knows what the wall is made of (render, concrete blocks, studs, plasterboard) and so can calculate the quantities of materials required to build that wall. It also knows the dimensions of the door .. so it can create a door schedule. Turn on door labelling and your automated door numbers all appear on the plan without you having to draw a thing. Automated? The door number is generated from the room (zone) it is in. The room also knows its area (again, a complete area schedule of a building is a few clicks away), the surface area of surrounding walls, volume, etc etc.

I could go on but I'll just bore everyone so I'll get to my point ..

BIM (Building Information Modelling) is an approach brought about by the very complexity in todays architecture you think Archicad is not suited to. The shear amount of information required to properly coordinate and document todays buildings cannot be accurately or efficiently done using the 2D technology of 30 years ago. Even Autodesk acknowledges BIM is the way of the future and that is why they bought and are heavily investing in Revit (the other main BIM package).

Do some research into BIM - there is a lot of it out there. Talk to the people in your office about why they decided to go down this path. If you still don't believe it is the right thing to do after some more time getting to know the BIM concept and Archicad itself, perhaps you should be thinking of finding an employer who is more like minded?

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:35:57 GMT

Did I mention that the firm mainly does church work ie restoration work and conservation. Now who thinks we need a 3d program? I can see the benefits of a 3d package for doing brand new buildings particularly housing and vernacular type buildings. Even completely modern buildings would probably be fair enough. But existing buildings and churches - it could take a lifetime trying to model an existing old building or church in 3d with all the mouldings and ins and outs.

I've similarly heard that BIMs are the way the industry is heading and like I said I could maybe see it happening in perhaps 10- 20 years time. But at the moment it just isnt feasible. As for being able to do door schedules why would an architect be bothered about that kind of thing when a supplier will do it all for them? And you hardly ever need to schedule out room areas. And as for door numbers yes that would be very useful but when I tried it I couldnt display the door numbers on their own without all the opening sizes etc which looked too complicated. Again I was being forced to work a certain way by the program!

Most people here do 3d walls just to place the windows and doors correctly - essentially using it like AutoCAD AEC. No-one here tries to model a whole building in 3d. Lets face it the architectural industry has just got used to 2d CAD drawings. I cant see anyone wanting to go into 3d for a very long time apart from a very small minority. I respect my firm for trying but cant help thinking its a bad decision at this point in time.

Nats

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Dwight — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:43:26 GMT

nats wrote:
I guess at some point I am going to just have to get some training and jump right in the deep end and try to do a full 3D project but how I am going to find time to do that I've no idea.

Nats

Right. Welcome, Nats.

Here on the West Coast of Canada, we get things last. So it is a delight and a horror to see numerous responses to your complaint/plea.

A drawing is a drawing is a drawing. Sometimes it is just a banana. It must be horrifying to sense a notion that promises incredible interactive productivity and not have the time to exploit it.

One thing is certain: It's different.

While you make many valid points in your posts, I think that most users would agree that the time to do a project in ArchiCAD is NOW. By the end of what would be your usual production time for a medium-complexity project in AutoCAD, you'll have learned ArchiCAD (somewhat - enough…) and also assembled a model that copes with revisions and design development changes. Because of that, you'll be ahead.

Your major barrier is that you know too much. Archicad training is best absorbed by people who don't already have drawing-based building solutions. This layer color concern, for instance. Haha. Who cares?! Anything goes anywhere, and most elements are already multi-colored. The "layer" as a management tool isn't as important as in Autocad. If you need to see what is on a layer, you select all the elements on that layer. BIM relies on object relationships to define a project.

Good luck.

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

TomWaltz — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:57:02 GMT

nats wrote:
blah blah vernacular blah blah

I think he's insulting anyone not cool enough to do churches:

"Vernacular architecture is a term used to categorize a method of construction which uses immediately available resources to address immediate needs, as such it is often dismissively associated with crude and unrefined solutions."

Re: ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

Chadwick — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:42:15 GMT

Wow. I have to say that I can sympathize with some of your views. I was amazed by ArchiCAD the first time I used it (only had 3 days of training - just the basics) and then I was frustrated - and then amazed again. I feel like any software is like this. Trust me when I say most of what you want to get done can be done - there is a way. The more time you take the easier it will seem.

Anyway, here is some proof. This image I am attaching is also the construction documents. This project has been taken from concept to CDs all in ArchiCAD (you can also get some nice renderings out of it as well). Nothing in this picture was made outside of ArchiCAD.