TEKLA and ARCHICAD

[Petros Ioannou]

check at
www.graphisoft.com


Petros

[Djordje]

I have it on good authority that the links work now ... gremlins in the server.

[Anonymous]

My new comments regarding this thread are:

Designing a structure one does not want to design the connections. Developing the connections is a function of the technology specific to each contractor (some will bolt some weld etc) Al what one must know is that the connection is possible. Tekla is a limiting factor in this respect.


Tekla does not handle masonry, wood, light gage metal. Risa or Ram does all this.


And yes Architect should design structure. The new generation of Architect will do structure because this is freedom.


I have posted to this topic last August
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=42616&highlight=risa#42616

Aaron,

Just forget abut Tekla:

The salesman explained "it is a 2d modeling tool" and runs also STAD on top of it. It is a mere $16,000 for an other Archicad. I understand is light years faster and in the future will do real BIM. The open GL of a much complex structure one that would bring AC to a crawl it instant plan 3d open side by side.

So tanks for the joke but lets be realistic, RISA plan 3D, footing, masonry, wood is only $5000.
_________________

[Anonymous]

16000$ is overpriced!
But does any other softwares have concreate detailing like Tekla has?
Does Archicad have any moduls on reinforcment drawings or detailing?

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Adalbert.

I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the connections are unimportant. Every connection has a purpose and the design of the connection is just as "stamped" as any sizing of the members.

Its my intuition that structural connection details are responsible for many of the structural innovations of the last century plus.

Tekla is for fabricators who increasingly assume more and more liability for the design of a steel or reinforced concrete structure.

[Anonymous]

Aaron wrote:
Tekla is for fabricators who increasingly assume more and more liability for the design of a steel or reinforced concrete structure.

I can only imagine that a one time $15000 software purchase is negligible if it manages to prevent even one liability suit from happening. I remember the first day of my first architecture class at uni my teacher said that liability hasn't changed much from the start of architecture, when a buildings designer was to be executed if a structure of his design failed, and caused loss of life.

cheers,
Daniel

[Anonymous]

Steel
All the other software solve the connections. Detailing them is a different story. Detailing connections is important but there are to many variables to go about and it is better left to be developed after bidding. Different bolts and different type of welds do the same thing.

For concrete Tekla is not better then the rest

Wood is not supported

Light Gage is not supported

Masonry is not supported

The cost of a maintenance updated is the cost of the others

User base is small

90% of what is built is by small architectural and enginnering firms, the reality shows that they would not invest t$16,000 for a solution

Risa with all modules is $7,000

It is no need to argue these are fact of life

[Anonymous]

a gage to Tekla's user base

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Adalbert,

Tekla was a tool developed for fabrication and detailing of steel and reinforced concrete structures. Where did you read that it ever did anything else?

Also, your pie chart seems to back up my claim that BIM in the structural world is being driven from the fabrication side. My bigger point is that the designers - be they architects or engineers have not embraced this technology until some external force acted upon them.

My experience suggests that structural engineers have shied away from 3D and have worked with two suites of tools - one for analysis and one for documentation for a very long time.

If the relationship between structural design and fabrication is an evolving one, then it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that Tekla (and the others for that matter) will likewise evolve to a point where there is a version of Tekla well suited to the practise of consulting structural engineering.

We work in a construction economy and so far we are not working vto a high enough level of integration.

I'm still not sure about the theme of this thread other than the fact that architects all of a sudden want to have a structural tool and are disappointed that Tekla costs so much money.

Please get over it, find your structural engineer and ask her when they're going to take the plunge and commit themselves to an integrated design process.. Soon, I hope, as I'm really tired of the redrafting that architects do for structural engineers. Someone is diluting the fee base and I know I'm not making enough money.

[TomWaltz]

Adalbert wrote:
a gage to Tekla's user base

It's a nice pie chart... but how many actual people do those percentages represent?

[Anonymous]

Adalbert wrote:

90% of what is built is by small architectural and enginnering firms, the reality shows that they would not invest t$16,000 for a solution

It is no need to argue these are fact of life

Maybe you expect to teach TEKLA the way they should do their business?
I bet they don't need you.
A good question could be why AC collaborates with them instead of your preferred soft.
Maybe because it is a Multilanguage and worldwide product.
We know you don't care about Japan or Europe but probably some people do