ArchiCAD is such a pain after AutoCAD!

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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

[andrewzarb]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[TomWaltz]

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.

[andrewzarb]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[TomWaltz]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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