I'm worried about using ArchiCAD

[Anonymous]

Hi,

So I'm on a student forum and a member on there has asked about ArchiCAD training... I said that I used ArchiCAD etc. and that I really think it's efficient.

A different (3rd year student) said that he would not recommend using ArchiCAD because it's not used by many Architects...

I already knew that AutoCAD is much more widely used but I've never really thought of it in detail:

Say in 3rd year, I contact Architect firms for work placement (as required) and it turns out that all the ones in my area only use AutoCAD, what would I do?

I briefly know how to use AutoCAD, but no way near as good as fellow students (who actually got lower grades than me). Surely as an employer, they will look at the experience and knowledge each student has to decide wether or not to employ them.

Should I use my spare time (2 months) to learn AutoCAD more, even though I know I will not use it for University, but just for the purpose of preparing myself for work placement?

AutoCAD can't be that complicated can it? I mean it's only really 2D lines? I know how to take a section of a building manually as ArchiCAD draws it for you, so there's no problem with the knowledge of how sections/plans or elevations work, it's just how the software implements them.


Why don't many people use ArchiCAD?

Thank you very much for your views on this.

[Anonymous]

Apparantley, Microstation, revit and Vectorworks are required my more employers in the UK, with ArchiCAD at the bottom (information taken from job posts online)

I will look at Vectorworks as it works on Mac and looks very similar to ArchiCAD. The one thing I've not seen in any other application is the fact that it's Building software. This means that only ArciCAD uses technical and generic names for components i.e wall, roof window etc. This may not seem that supeiroir, but it's go to better than just working with the 'line' tool. Plus with these feature in ArchiCAD, you learn about wall thicknesses etc.a s well as wall fills window materials... I'm not sure Vectorworks does this.

I value any opinions...

Thank You

[Anonymous]

Interesting question!

Generally, in the UK AutoCAD is probably the most common 2d architectural drawing tool that architects use, so your friend is right : more architects will be using AutoCAD than ArchiCAD.

Mind you, if we were talking about full 3d BIM software (which in my opinion is the future) I'd guess that there were similar numbers using ArchiCAD compared to Autodesks Revit at the moment, and these numbers will keep increasing as time goes on, as this way of working offers many benefits over 2d drawing especially with complex schemes.

Bearing all that in mind, I'd say it would still be a wise decision to get some practice with AutoCAD exactly for the reasons you mention. You don't want to limit your employment possibilities. It is so fundamentally different to ArchiCAD it would be a pain trying to learn it whilst at the same time attempting to produce professional work from it. It wouldn't do any harm to learn a bit about Revit & Vectorworks either, but you wont have enough time to learn any more than the basics!

The question about the depth of knowledge you need to be productive is a little difficult to answer. I have seen many CVs from students who claim to 'know' AutoCAD, Sketchup, Revit, Vectorworks, Microstation and ArchiCAD, but I know full well there is a massive difference between being able to open the program and draw a few lines, and actually knowing all the techniques to be productive in a professional environment. In actual terms it takes months to become really comfortable in a program, (and maybe years to master an extra complex program like ArchiCAD or Revit!). A lot of it is knowing the best technique to use in a particular situation - and none of the programs work in quite the same way!

Once you had a bit of practice on your own, I'd always advise trying to get a professional user to show you around the software and point out where you're going wrong. You'll learn a lot more in a shorter time!

Good luck with whatever you decide!

[Anonymous]

Peter wrote:

Once you had a bit of practice on your own, I'd always advise trying to get a professional user to show you around the software and point out where you're going wrong. You'll learn a lot more in a shorter time!

Good luck with whatever you decide!

That's exactly what I want to do. I would love to go into a Architects Office and see how they work. I don't think that anyone would want to employ a student who won't necessarily be able to offer their anything to the company due to lack of experience. (unless it's unpaid, do Architects do/want the hassle of a non-professional taking up their office space?)

A friend from Uni, in my group is at an Architects office in the UK (Cambridge) and she says that she doesn't like it (well her Facebook status is " Can't wait for my holiday", "Don't want to go to work tomorrow" "It's being a long day" etc.) and she is just producing 3D models in sketchup but she went to the same practice when she was in school (16 years old) for work experience (compulsory), so they asked her to come back when she studies Architecture...

I read a lot into software and there are far to many competitors to choose one application, this can only be determined by the employer. On this forum, the threads like 'AutoCAd vs ArchiCAD' always bring up a debate as to which is better and more often the ArchiCAD supporters will say that people who use AutoCAD will be 'bored and not really motived' since it's just 2D.

I think that Vectorworks had an advantage here because it's very similar to ArchiCAD (BIM) and works in the same way i.e based on a building model is where the documentation is produced. I feel that AutoCAD it too time consuming to draw each section and elevation individually, then have to create a 3D model, not to mention the time it takes to update each drawing if you add an extra window etc.

Have you used Vectorworks? Does it have the built in library like ArchiCAD ? Can I download external library parts ? Does it function as a building modeller of more of a free-form modeller and animation? Are the tools labelled as line.polyine etc. or do they use real world components like Wall and Roof?

I'm not asking you to answers these questions, but these are fundamentally, things I need to look at. I have to address the issues that in the UK, most Architects will be using AutoCAD, or at least more Architects will be using Microstation or Vectorworks over ArchiCAD (for some reason, I don't know why)

Next Summer, I'm going to try and get placement in an Architects office as this summer I need to learn more software and work as much as possible (in retailing, hate the job!) I actually worry about what's going to happen at year 3 if I only know ArchiCAD and C4D, but the Practice wants me to use AutoDESK only products. I guess I can just say "I used ArchiCAD, what do you use" and them turn it down because I don't know the software.

Being a student is very stressful. The professors expect us to produce professional work from day one, they couldn't care less that we haven't used the software before. I don't know how so many Architecture Students (or students in general) can go out 3-4 times a week and not bother to learn more. I'm certainly not a clone of the 'typical' student. I spend ALL my time and money on equipment, materials and books for the course and worry too much about my future - but that's the way I am! I want to be a successful Architect and achieve higher grades, but I deserve it... you'll never see me in a club! (I'm not being big-headed or anything here)

I guess that once your in a company you like working for, you can settle for which ever software they use.As I'm not employed or have not graduated, I can't simply decide that I like ArchiCAD because the interface is intuitive or that I don't like AutoDESK products because they won't work on my Mac ( although rumour has it, AutoCAD is coming to the Mac this year)

[Anonymous]

Any drawing software is a only tool for manufacturing buildings and architecture. Once you are able to master one, you will be able to master them all, because you will have the mindset to do so.
Plurality is a good thing on your curriculum vitae. While you are studying, it is best learn a few tools.
Once you can prove your ability to master a tool, any employer will hire you. But there is nothing wrong with a strong preference for ArchiCAD.

[Anonymous]

Master wrote:
Any drawing software is a only tool for manufacturing buildings and architecture. Once you are able to master one, you will be able to master them all, because you will have the mindset to do so.
Plurality is a good thing on your curriculum vitae. While you are studying, it is best learn a few tools.
Once you can prove your ability to master a tool, any employer will hire you. But there is nothing wrong with a strong preference for ArchiCAD.

That's what I wanted to hear.

I looked on RIBA today (UK ArchitectureBody, and standard for education of Architects) and they had around 25 jobs across the UK. 3 of those jobs were for ArchiCAD and Mac Computers! (My dream come true)

What else I've realised is that the University doesn't bring students down to earth, or rather the tutors are not dealing or implementing reality. The reality is that not all Architecture Practices produce ' Colourful' elevations and fancy 3D renderings (which is what I want to do and to me, is the future) In reality I've heard that a young Architect makes door schedules and does not make design decisions, despite the 7 years of training.

Making design decisions isn't really what I expected - why should I make these decisions when the boss has been working their for 20 year's and has more experience... Also what Uni doesn't teach students is basic construction. We have not been taught exactly how a building is made, how it works etc. which is probably why Architects (or at least young Architects) are under paid and exploited... Don't get me wrong, Uni is great, I love it but I know that what happens in there probably won't happen in the real world. There exsuce is that the building isn't going to be built, or Uni is for 'creativity' the job deals with reality.

[Fez1974]

Hi NStocks,
I remember that name, I think I gave you a few hours training on Archicad a while back so I'm please you are still pasionate about it.
I've been on and off archicad for the last 4 years due to the economy. I had to revert back to my native microstation for 18months because thats all the jobs that were on offer after I was made redundant in 08. I'm now back into an archicad environment.
The point is, you need as many strings to your bow as possible, (especially at this current time) and unfortunately firms want students to hit the ground running and employ them on the basis of CAD experience rather than architectural flare. I learnt microstation in '95 but discovered revit in '03 and purchased a copy. Unfortunately no architects in birmingham really used it and I gave up on it and still have the box collecting dust. In '07 I found a firm using archicad and joined them purely on the basis that I wanted to get into an office using BIM and I learnt it in a couple of months but luckily I got the job on the basis of experience, you don't have that at the moment and you need it.
On another point; most architects will never move to BIM and stick to 2D. I suggest you get some knowledge of Autocad and Microstation to help you get a job, then after a few months take in your educational copy of Archicad and do some free work in it to show your boss and convince him to purchase a copy, which is expensive to be honest. Companies need to be profitable at the end of the day and alot of current 2D staff don't like moving up to new versions, let alone learning different software, or god forbid learning BIM. So training is expensive but the loss of productivity is a massive loss too. I know staff leave companies due to a change in software, albeit in the dizzy heights of the boom years in 05/06.
I don't use, in fact I refuse to learn Autocad but I can help you with microstation if necessary.
regards
mark

[Dwight]

NStocks wrote:
We have not been taught exactly how a building is made, how it works etc. which is probably why Architects (or at least young Architects) are under paid and exploited

Despite seven years of 'training', you will enter a firm UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING REAL. They gift you a salary and let you hang around to refine your craft and learn how buildings really get created, not paying your own way with billables for two years or so, in the hope that you'll eventually make a cultural contribution or marry a rich politician's daughter and bring in some work.

Want to learn building technology? Go to technical school. Work in construction [for a real eye-opener]. You'll be able to assist architects in their work as they gaily wave their arms in the air to describe what you are to produce. [see my avatar].

Accept the following:

1: What you just got is an "education", not training. You don't need to know "exactly" how a building is made because you don't need to know that. "Sort of" is close enough. What you are expected to know as a young architect is how to interpret ideas in a cultural context, bringing the memory of the wonderful spaces you've seen in photos and visited in person - to enrich the world. AND door schedules.

2: The subtleties and realities of architectural practice are learned through apprenticeship, like any decent profession. Even men's clothiers need to learn the correct degree of flattery to keep commissions flowing. I recently bought a fine jacket on the way to a funeral. The guy hung the threads upon me and said "You could be a model for this brand of jacket, it fits so well." I am sure he overheard that from some old guy. [Remember to never say that to someone with a dowager's hump]

3: It is harder now to develop architecturally with BIM applications since the level of architectural knowledge needed to productively work is greater than ever. Because views are integrated in a model, you can't have a monkey drawing a plan all alone anymore. This is, in part, why interns get the schedules. It exposes them to the team process while reducing the impact of an error. Do schedules with gratitude and learn finishes, flame spread and hardware while you do them. Can you say "astragal"?

3A: Producing architecture requires the juggling of many balls at once, and once you have finished your meeting with the bosses and washed your hands, it is time to consider all facets of the work - something you can't do weighed down by the dreary realities of flashing and optimal beam sizes that afflict the guys who know exactly how to assemble buildings.

4: If you think computer skills are going to help you or that 3D renderings are the future of design, get thee to a nunnery animation school. Managing, not producing work is the route to progress.

5: Making progress in a firm means being able to anticipate what is needed in a project and providing it to facilitate team decisions. Do this well and soon they'll trust you with bigger decisions and teach you how to wave your arms with authority while directing stooges. The best thing I ever did was to identify a huge error in a project in which I was planning the hard landscape. The bossman had sketched a bike path going under a transit guideway with five feet of clearance. This, after six weeks of layout by a prior worker. Duh.

6: While you think you know something, you need to approach firms with the attitude that you are starting out and need to learn. A spectrum of software skills only shows that you are adaptable and a good learner.

7: When they ask you to learn a new software, do it on your own time and READ the manual. You should hide your bad attitude to learning as expressed on this forum by reading manuals and doing the training.

[Fez1974]

Just picking up on what Dwight had replied to your comment of not knowing how buildings go together. Many universities in England will only teach design and not construction. They want architects to design without the influence of construction limitations. I have employed many young architects who don't know the size of a brick, building terminology or a clue of building regulations. Leaving university at the age of 25, in debt, and very green is tough and it will take you a few years to get to grips with it all. Hence employers asking for a few years experience post graduation. That is why I chose the technician route and something I don't regret, albeit had 9 years education of my own, but part-time. I think you should consider doing your post-grad (part 2) part-time as you will get alot of experience in the office.
Finally, most architects probably spend less than 10% of their time designing. I'm sure a few will disagree with that statement but I even worked with an architect who admitted he'd never designed one single building in all of his career.

[Dwight]

The reason for all of this construction vagueness is that no one ever masters all building types in detail. AND it is a waste of time to engage students in this time-consuming and soul-destroying process. Things change rapidly in our profession since new software, methods and materials emerge daily - why dwell on archaic specifics [Archicad included]?

As a career progresses, one gets a feel for the design constraints of wood frame, low masonry, concrete or steel high-rise, but technology specialists are the ones who apply details - this is NOT an architect's area of skill, but falls to the proprietary structural detailer, or glazing detailer, or whatever.

The architect's job is to provide PLAUSIBLE design work to the construction document team. For instance, I once gathered a group of junior and intermediate designers together to explain that water does not flow uphill, you idiots! You need no detailing skill to understand drainage paths from a structure. Common sense, not detailed knowledge, is vital in design.

Another for instance: we were doing the design development of a sports club expansion when it came to light that the design partner had put the tennis courts beyond the property line. I re-figured the plan to get everything in. He said "I don't think that they will go for this since I promised them sunnier tennis courts." Then he went back to drinking and chasing snatch. [An obscure form of cricket practiced in Canada with balls, a 'bat' and a 'wicket.']

And you NEVER know how badly a building is assembled until you see your boss cave in to a bad framing practice [cantilevered balcony joists] during a meeting with the construction manager instead of a secure practice guaranteeing constant envelope maintenance [independent balcony structure] after you have convinced him that this is the only way to avoid a lawsuit later. AND he had dandruff!

And, besides, you NEVER know how a building is created and assembled until you've been through the actual process several times, from concept to field services. You might resent the lack of practical preparation school provides, but they are trying to expand your mind with superior ability and perception that may take years to emerge.

A good 'for instance' here is LEED - energy and environmental design. We studied these issues in the 1970's, but it wasn't until there was a political program to promote, celebrate and award builders who spent extra capital that clients paid attention to the new ideas. It only took 25 years to happen.

Building is stupid. You'll get the basics within one year by studying drawings and whining to your betters. Just like posting on Archicad TALk instead of reading the manuals. It will probably come as a heartbreak to discover the difficulty, unreliability and outrageous costs of creating those saggy,swoopy losenges you made in design school, back when your architectural mind was embryonic, too. But water flows down hill no matter what the software says.