Good writeup on Archicad vs Autocad "Autocad on steriods"

[rob2218]

A while back, a fellow so eloquently wrote how archicad was like autocad on steriods.......and I'm looking for the writing.

Anyone know of or has remembers such a write up by a fellow power archicad user???

Please, need your help on this one.

RR

[Anonymous]

Any idea where you saw it? Was it on this forum, or was it in some kind of article elsewhere? How long ago did you read it?

[Anonymous]

How about this one - BIM : CAD on steroids

http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2008/ProtoBuilding.html

[Djordje]

Peter wrote:
How about this one - BIM : CAD on steroids

http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2008/ProtoBuilding.html

The article is excellent, with one caveat: conceptually, there is no connection between CAD and VB. CAD is the continuation of the standard practice using electronic means, while VB is a completely new concept and therefore a new way of working.

Yes, it is hard to explain that to people and it does not make a good sales point. Neither do the electric cars after a century of burning oil - but hey, who would say no to the sexy Tesla roadster? It may be really a Lotus, but Lotus that has new appeal.

It's about concepts, mentality, and let's not go into education ... basically, the best explanation of the difference I have heard came on a Tekla seminar: in CAD, the interpretation of the data is still fully dependent on the human that is looking at the drawing - as CAD means drawings. In VB, the digital set of data is conveyed from one software to another.

Therefore ... no VB, or as popularly known, BIM package can be a CAD on steroids.

[Anonymous]

Hi all,

The AECBytes article is very interesting. The main points for me are the articles' notion that; 1) full BIM = digitally forming the entire real building in cyberspace, 2) CAD = old style drawings but done in cyberflatland.

The proposed BIM idea is what many of us already think we are doing in with Archicad. I beg to differ.

The BIM vs "mere" 3d model divergence is that we still are using a TON of conventions to simplify and expedite the representation process. EX1: composite walls, roofs, EX2: doors and windows; while complex aren't "real", i.e. no lumber core, trim details for glass inserts, weather strip, etc.

You can look at any thing we draw/model and realize that we are so used to the conventions that we no longer see this stuff as representations anymore; Ceci n'est pas une pipe, by Magritte.

I have no interest in BIM-ing a /3d/materials/cost/ hardware schedule, nor the huge (and repetitive) number of connectors, fasteners and cements that exist on a building of any complexity. Hm... to model ball bearings in hinges or not, that is the question... How about the packing grease, or protective films used for delivery protection?

Our Architectural conventions (the old drawing stuff) exist for a reason. EX1: I fully develop wall sections ONLY where I cut sections, the rest of the model is a little on the bare side, EX2:I like representing flashing and membranes with a small (but false) air gap to increase the legibility of the assembly, and so on.

In conclusion: I will design my building and 3d model it. The estimator (quantity surveyor) or contractor can fill in the bill of materials, and the engineer can produce an energy audit, and ...

My 13 cents worth - waiting AC box in the mail:),
Mark