ArchiCAD or not?

[Anonymous]

Our 5 person firm is considering switching from AutoCAD LT to ArchiCAD. We have seen the presentation and are impressed. We are however concerned about the transition and about the reality of doing every project in 3D. We have spoken with some firms in the area who have purchased ArchiCAD but they wound up only using it for 2D or going back to their previous software. Any ideas on how to make a successful transition? Why do some firms stick with it and others abandon? We definately want the 3D capability. We're just not sure if doing every project entirely in 3D is the way to go. I used ArchiCAD 4.5 in school but no one else is familiar with it. Any insights would be greatly appriciated!

[Dwight]

http://www.getstandardized.com/

What else?

[Dwight]

And hurry.

Forget that ADT it is pidgeon droppings.

[Dwight]

Okay. three in a row

[Anonymous]

Dawn wrote -

Our 5 person firm is considering switching from AutoCAD LT to ArchiCAD. We have seen the presentation and are impressed. We are however concerned about the transition...

ArchiCAD...and the humble wall

1. Two clicks you get a WALL.

2. It is 'Solid', like a real wall should be.

3. It has real width.

4. It can have a single or multiple skins & cavities.

5. All skins and cavities can be individually customised so than in plan they show correct colour, fill (or hatch) pattern & line weight.

6. Materials (brick, render, paint, etc) can be set to both faces and also the edges. It can even be set to transparent.

7. The walls automatically join into other walls of the same type. (or not if you wish to overrule)

8. The wall can vary in height along it's length and be joined seamlessly.

9. The wall can walls over or under and be joined seamlessly.

10. It can be curved, straight, polywall, trapezoid (there is even castle type add-on if you need)

11. You can place niches, arches, portholes, cappings, internal or external skirting + wall panel + dado + upper wall finish + cornice to selected walls, close end cavities, sills, capitals, transparent glass, lighting, doors of any combination, shape and size and lots of other stuff in, on and attached to your wall. Yes, even in the curved wall.

12. Your wall can automatically trim to roofs, slabs and whatever you want it to. If you move or adjust the position, slope or pitch of any of these items, your wall will adjust to it. Very nice.

13. Imagine your wall only 50mm/2inches high. It has now easily become a footpath. It's meandering through a 3D landscape one of your senior architects has designed and you have meticulously modelled. It has curves and straight sections, and at one point it splits in two and goes around a fountain and rejoins again. You have applied a bold stone texture to it's surface. The client loves it on your 3D renderings and as you spin the model around to show other views from whatever angle and height and time of day you wish, there is a permeable air of satisfaction and excitment as client and designer swap thoughts and ideas about the virtual scene your firm has created. There is comment also about how the light from the lamp posts along the path and the plants placed accordingly have given the scene a serious touch of reality. Sorry, got carried away!!

14. Your wall will display correctly in Elevation and Section.

15. You can edit in these views; in fact ALL views.

16. You can edit with a lot more fun in 3D though , and often quicker as there are many editing tools available to manipulate your wall just as you wish. Remember, one wall edit will update in, for example, 1 Plan + 4 Elevations + 2 Sections + 1 Detail View + 1 Internal view + 4 3D Views. That's 13 views it changes with one edit. ArchiCAD is obviously a female as there is no doubt it can do more than one thing at a time, and does so often! (When used to 2D editing, it is hard to imagine how 3D editing would be more useful and often used more in many situations - I have a 2D drafting history and had the same problem, but no longer)

17. When you edit your wall in whatever view, it will change in all other views. To ArchiCAD users this is normal, to the 'others' it is miraculous.

18. Less mistakes in cross referencing drawings - that actually means the boss gets to take home more money because he didn't have to pay the workers to fix all those 'expected' problems when the wall wasn't changed in the other view. Or did the drawings get to site before the problem was found and the wall was actually half built before the issue was discovered! Bugga! That costs the boss not only cash, but reputation.

19. Why would anyone in their right mind WANT to use a 2D tool to design a 3D thing??? Buildings are 3D objects. If the senior partners in your firm can convince me of this (using 2D), I WILL eat my cat, and go and use ManualCAD, I mean AutoCAD.

20. Finally, you can have ArchiCAD calculate quantities of your wall.

This is by no means all you can do with an ArchiCAD wall. Seriously, far from it. However, if management are serious about design and truly do want arguably the best design & documentation tool on the planet, the best designs (when you can see the building before it's built, you always find ways to improve it), and the best output (even for capitalist reasons, it's a logical choice) then there is no other option.

Look forward to your firm joining our ranks.

[David Collins]

Dawn wrote:
Our 5 person firm is considering switching from AutoCAD LT to ArchiCAD. .... We have spoken with some firms in the area who have purchased ArchiCAD but they wound up only using it for 2D or going back to their previous software...!

You should take a look around your present office right now. Are there lots of old cardboard study models lying around on the sideboards? Do the designers have quick 3d sketches tacked onto their pinup boards? Do your clients get to see models and perspectives, even if they haven’t asked for them? Can your boss sketch in 3d if he has to?

I think the firms that failed with ArchiCAD, or wound up trying to use it to produce 2d drawings, would have all answered “no” to those questions.

If your client needs a perspective rendering of the project, do you call in an illustrator at the end of the project, after the design work is finished? Does the perspectivist then ask you lots of embarrassing questions about the ceilings, roofs, lighting and materials, which none of you can answer? Does your boss then make lots of changes because he doesn’t recognize his design when he sees it in 3d?

Hopefully not, but you may simply be working in a Flatland office. Time to polish up your resume.

David Collins
no, seriously

[TomWaltz]

Personally, I believe the biggest user-level difference between AutoCAD and Archicad is the same thing you find with any "architectural" software: RULES.

In AutoCAD, you can do almost anything you want in any drawing, and you only really affect that one drawing. It's all linework.

Archicad has "rules of behavior," which require a little more care and thought in your work. Once you learn them, you can greatly improve both the speed and coordination of your work.

For example, deleting a stray line in section may delete a wall in plan. Faking a wall cleanup in plan may leave a gap in your elevations. You have to actually model the form of the building in order to get the most out of it.

You must be willing to take the time to manage and organize your data, using layer combinations, viewsets, and other tools that come built into the program. For best results, you can pick up a third-party template system such as Eric Batte's or the classic "Project Framework" book, which steps you through using the program (it's a little dated, for version 6.5, but still very enlightening).

We started our switch from Arris to Archicad last April. Our biggest setbacks came when users were not willing to change their traditional practice for the newer "Virtual Building" concepts. Those that made the change LOVE it, and are cranking out jobs far faster than before. Those who insist on treating Archicad like a 3D AutoCAD (where anything goes) are miserable.

[Aaron Bourgoin]

Dwight wrote:
...

It takes commitment - firms that fail to employ 3D usually skimped on training, never brought in a consultant to help change their corporate culture - Aaron Bourgoin chime in here - and weren't that interested in producing superior construction documents...

Yes, I'll chime in.... Someone I know who, on seeing ArchiCAD for the first time, laughed and said, mockingly, "ArchiCAD sounds more like a way of life than a software application."

Somewhat defensively, I said, "You're absolutely right."

A month later, he placed an order. Client demand had given him a reason to buy a tool like ArchiCAD. The reason was convincing renderings of a project in a hurry. He seemed happy enough until he passed the software on to a pencil monkey who in his ernest desire to make a pretty picture modelled every brick in a large facade and brought a 3 city network to its knees.

Five years later he's no longer a user. He grew tired of trying to explain the rationale for a way of life to his partners and made the decision to get on with his life. The client demand for 3D stuff was still there and his firm was, for a time, situated on a testimonial page at the ADT web site despite his admission to me that after two years of using Desktop his firm still had no real idea of what to do with it.

The corporate culture is a strange thing. In my experience as a user and a reseller as well as someone responsible for its use in a large installation, the move to virtual building must be embraced by everyone in the firm and there absolutely has to be a deployment plan in place. A firm that doesn't function as a team, but rather a collection of individualists will not succeed in making ArchiCAD work.

An Illustration, albeit anecdotal:

One: The principal buys in:

Principals of firms very often champion ArchiCAD because they see the value of working in 3D.

For themselves.

Period.

The "way of life" is introduced and soon fails because as long as the principal can work the way they want, the rest of the team can do what they want as well. One sure sign that this is happening is the principal's reluctance to upgrade the software. The old version works fine - the new one is maybe a bit too complex. Another sign is that AutoCAD creeps back - in the dead of night.

Dwight wrote:
...

ArchiCAD destroys the archaic architectural labor pyramid - more senior people must have active involvement in forming the model, inevitably teaching the minions more - assistants learn more about building making models that quickly provide "reality information" to destroy the erratic fantasies of vague, gesticulating principals...

Two: The principal doesn't get it or at least not the whole thing

A recent post mortem on a project included the following statement:

"The transition from design development to working drawings necessitates the creation of a new model. The underlying assumptions in the design are not reflected in the construction of the design model and it should be restated. This can be done quickly because the principles are understood and its faster to remodel them than it is to massage the existing model."

I'm not sure if this is simply the statement of one who doesn't understand the virtual building process and is therefore totally wrong; or, if he has a point. Certainly if the model is constructed in such a way that it can't be revised to demonstrate these first principles of a design that there's something laking in the approach.

As someone involved in training and coaching, I think this is a sign that there still isn't a buy-in and that training needs to be taken back to something very basic.

This year I've been doing winter seminars taking one tool at a time and trying to reinforce the relationship between the tools. This was greeted with an initial sense of scorn - as if this was so basic that it was stupid. At the end of an hour, the attitude had changed. I heard comments like, "I didn't know you could do that", "I've been working too hard", "did you know that you can do it this way as well and its faster..."

These sessions have now transmuted into trying to make an even simpler point and that is if you don't work with other people in mind you really run the risk of cocking things up real fast. If a virtual building is not being constructed to a standard (where that the measure of it value is that anyone can pick up work on a project with a minimum of familiarization) the the information in the model can soon become very unworkable.

The true test of the transition to virtual building is in the understanding that while it might resemble 2D drafting (a comforting and seductive quality of the interface) but that it is surely something else entirely. For example, it is not enough to show someone how to label a wall a certain way (a triangular label of a set size, offset from the wall a certain distance. This is because the label is not really a label in ArchiCAD, its a portal to another source of information and that information (a wall type in this instance) is information that resides with the wall and NOT the label. This sounds very simple, but it is extremely hard to grasp for some people.

Again, a team approach, embedded in the corporate culture is essential.

Three: The principal still doesn't get it at all and probably won't.

Sometimes we look back to the days of the project file drawer and the sketches that document the progress of a project. They contain no re-usable information, simply an idea about the project at a point in time. In the old days when all we had were drawings, each drawing had a certain purpose. There was no such thing as a drawing that said everything.

A project is being developed by two firms in two different cities. Both use different tools. To make matters worse, one firm is drawing plans in AutoCAD, and developing two different models in Form*Z. The form is a compound curve and the temptation to extrude an unrationalized spline along a path has become too great. Every week there is an information exchange and the building information gets iterated into an ArchiCAD model. The spline is altered slightly and the recasting of the roof has to begin again. Base drawings are reissued from ArchiCAD, the AutoCAD plans are updated and the section (well, I really don't know what's happening to the section, I can't track the comings and goings of this one anymore).

The information or the "embodied knowledge" to paraphrase a current sustainable design term now exists in at least four drawing spaces and in the minds eye of at least two senior people who don't draw for themselves. Each version of this building - the 2D CAD plan, the two form*Z blobs and the ArchiCAD section each fulfill their respective role in the progress billing for the job.


Three instances of no teamwork, no direction, and no strategy. Where might this go? Less profit, more attrition and less competitive advantage.

Dwight wrote:
...

Working in ArchiCAD means that you have to think your work through - you can't "sort of" fake a thing up and hope they'll "work it out on the site." In Canada, this is a euphemism for "big [censored] change order."
Doing everything in 3D - to a point - provides work saving information and prevents ducts attempting to drill through beams. ...

I do not yet see the point where virtual buildings are ready to be embraced in even forward thinking practices. I used to think that firms who bought ArchiCAD to make pretty pictures - and only pretty pictures were the firms who soon ended up using the boxes as doorstops.

In the coming paradigm shift there will be other reasons for the breaking away from virtual buildings. While fewer firms are evaluating software simply for its ability to make pretty pictures, I've tried to illustrate the point that even those that see value in the model as "embodied information" and the "embodied knowledge" that is captured by and resides with a clearly articulated CAD standard can also miss the point. Big time!

Just as the argument for virtual building is still in its infancy, so too is the notion of sustainable design. Early adopters have embraced LEED as a way of hanging out a green shingle and its a pretty easy credential to obtain without necessarily knowing how to make sustainable design work. The early adopters are losing their competitive advantage as even the least "sustainable" firms can grab the credential with two days of studying and $350USD.

In order to reestablish a competitive advantage, the early adopters must refocus on teamwork and making the notion of "integrated design" work. Convincing engineers of this is a very frustrating task because it involves a similar reorganization of the labour and resource pyramid - that is the ways and means by which they have always been able to make more money than architects on projects - wait until the architect has stopped designing and go like hell at the very end. (ArchiCAD is way too front end intensive for current engineering practice. that is not to say that they'll never get it, but if architects are typically late adopters of technology, engineers don't like to disrupt their well-oiled money making machines.)

A convergence between this ongoing evolution of practice and the virtual building is coming and it may force the issue with the encouragement of the client. Building simulation is an important part of sustainable and integrated design. To do it effectively, it has to become a standard tool on the designer's desktop and not something to be hired out. (in Canada we don't really do simulation or life cycle cost analysis in real time we design something and execute a battery of tests on it to see if we passed - sort of like punch cards and computer runs).

Virtual building is the key to kicking the building while its being designed and another means of keeping more of the fees in house.

Here, too, the challenge is in making multi-platform collaboration work, a slow and steady encouragement of other consultants to embrace a virtual building platform (an argument for "integrated design" if there ever was one), and the education of clients to understand that there is a life for the virtual building that extends beyond the design and documentation of a project as well.

[Anonymous]

While my response isn't quite as colorful as some of the others here are the top 8 reasons I find people fail with ArchiCAD, my experience has been as follows: (some tips for success follows the list)


1. Narrow mindset of principals and users stuck in the dark ages w/ the unwillingness to stop comparing it to the flatland apps or pencils they may currently be using. It doesn't work like _____ This firm will usually have the "CAD jeanyus" who's able to convince everyone that 2d is the only way to become most efficient and productive. (see also #5)

2. Adalbertitus, the insistence of trying to circumvent the way the
program was designed to function and proclaiming that no matter how you slice it it come out c___p and it's simply incapable of doing what they witnessed when they saw the demonstration or have seen other firms doing.

3. Lack of support (perceived or actual) by the ArchiCAD Representatives
(Sorry I have a hard time referring to them as "resellers" as I feel this is somewhat of a degrading title and, according to every dictionary currently published in the US, doesn't describe their function in the least. re-seller = ebayers flea-marketers and the like) I think that some, unfortunately for all parties involved, sell themselves and AC short by not selling any third party libraries and/or add-ons to those who will obviously need them to create the types of projects they do. I find most of these people would have eagerly coughed up a few more grand in cash up front for these items and now resent being nickeled and dimed to death and sent to all corners of the globe searching for what they need that may or may not help them create what they want. Some people simply don't want to be an AC guru or spend hours in cyberspace searching for something when they're not really sure what to be looking for in the first place. This group, appears to me, would have been some of GS best advocates and success stories if someone had sold them what they needed to get the job done in the first place. These are also, otherwise, usually the highly successful firms getting the most coveted projects and are extremely busy. Their knuckles are truly white before they finally give it up.

4. Lack of manufacturer recognition and support of the program.

5. The insistence of combining AC with their old CAD or other drawing methods and or relying heavily on 2d instead of using the model as intended. (these are usually the same 2d people that scream the loudest because they can't create take offs and schedules from their line-work "as your supposed to be able to".) and like #1&2 never experience the automation of document creation and revisions.

6. Unwillingness to invest in having an experienced user help them set up and explain the system properly. They usually have an office full of people heading off in different directions. ArchiCAD is all about organization. This is usually the group that has named every project the same and can't understand why they have to open a million projects to find the one they're looking for if it hasn't been overwritten a dozen times over. They also rely heavily on 2d and create a new pln for every story, section, etc...

7. These are the ones that may be tough to smoke out at first. Primarily over 50, though not always They have a difficult time spelling arkitexter never-mind practicing it, they can't create it in their minds and they can't create it in any app or on any drawing board either. Look for "the books or software their writing" at a store near you. It seems all of these people have a book "in process". They usually live and praktiss in controlled markets that require an architects drawing for the construction of a birdhouse and yet can't figure that out either. I've learned to identify this group much quicker these days, the huge rolodex(es) (the ones that hold thousands of cards) that are loaded to the point of bursting with cards that are turning into parchment and contain the names of people who they've never met and who've passed along to greener pastures before I was a even born, gives them away.

8. The last group simply doesn't use it. Some of these people are even the first to upgrade and will continue to do so as those in #7 they talk it up to all their associates and anyone who will listen but are always waiting for that "special", and forever elusive project that will warrant their actually opening the app and using it.

Creating a 3D model in AC is, IMO, a walk in the park the biggest challenge to someone who is switching from drafting to modeling their projects needs someone to show them how to create the model correctly, to avoid a lot of unnecessary 2D editing (avoid un-linkers), and how to extract the documents from it. The first rule of thumb is to build the model the same way it will be built in reality. "Play" around with the program to become familiar with the tools and navigating through the "project" and then find someone who will train your firm while actually creating a project from beginning to end (even if the project is not actually finished all documentation should be in place and you should be able to continue on with the model and rely on AC's automation and be able to finish it out yourselves), everyone doing not watching this will keep you from getting behind and help minimize the INVESTMENT for training in your mind as it seems to hurt most when you haven't really learned how to produce documents with AC and haven't produced anything at all in any CAD or otherwise while you were being trained. IMO and experience, a competent trainer should be able to have you productive in about 50 hours or less for high end residential or light commercial and you will have touched on even some of the more obscure tools and techniques and have a basic understanding of GDL and how it works. Don't plan on creating too much from scratch but you should know how to modify and repair objects to achieve the desired results. There are many that may be prepared to dazzle you with their skills but are unable to impart the proper knowledge to you in an organized way so that you will be able to create the documentation you need to produce when they are gone. Don't select a trainer based solely upon the paper documents they present, insist on both paper and CAD documentation of that project and have them guide you through the project with you at the computer, not them. If the trainer doesn't follow some type of organized system look for another.

Be opened minded to change especially in regards to current office standards a lot of the flatland ways simply work against AC's capabilities. Even the design process will change, this is very difficult for many, you may have to make decisions about the design in a different order, things that you never gave thought to until the end of a project may need some thought earlier on if you want to produce something your not embarrassed to present to your client. Most firms I've worked with had considered this to be a major disadvantage until they were producing DD's with a level of detail and info that actually reduced the number DD meetings with the client almost in half and were able to address many aspects of the project that wouldn't have been addressed, if at all, until a later date or, on larger projects, usually, after construction begins....
Remember, AC is a database/design tool and the 3D capabilities frees up more of your time. Time that used to be wasted for drafting can now be utilized for designing so the sooner you address design issues the sooner your project will near completion as the documents should fall into place quickly and easily if you've invested in the right person/firm for setting you up and training you.

.......... The advantages of ArchiCAD over 2d are about endless.

Wish you great success with AC.

[__archiben]

Jeffrey wrote:
2. Adalbertitus, the insistence of trying to circumvent the way the program was designed to function and proclaiming that no matter how you slice it it come out c___p and it's simply incapable of doing what they witnessed when they saw the demonstration or have seen other firms doing.

[Dwight]

2. Adalbertitus, the insistence of trying to circumvent the way the program was designed to function and proclaiming that no matter how you slice it it come out clap and it's simply incapable of doing what they witnessed when they saw the demonstration or have seen other firms doing.

Adalbertitus, Santorum, what next? All these new, perfect words in the modern lingo....

So we got started on "ArchiCAD or not" and we conclude that:
1: It takes organized thinking to manage ArchiCAD - no faking.
2: New thinking and training are required for success.

Swell.