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

[Rakela Raul]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Petros Ioannou]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[owen]

[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?

[Anonymous]

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

[Dwight]

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.

[TomWaltz]

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."

[Chadwick]

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.