HOW DO SMALL FIRMS WORK?

[Anonymous]

I work in a small firm (5 people). There are two principals who do not use ArchiCAD, and three of us, myself included, who do. We do a lot of residential work and some commercial/institutional.

What I am trying to figure out is how most firms around our size work in ArchiCAD. Do you do all 3D, or a combination of 2D and 3D? I will explain how we work and you can tell me how far behind the times we are...

We do all our floorplans the standard way, using wall composites, library parts, etc., but we do some lines on the floorplans to show ceiling lines, wall type markers, etc. (I think this is a given). We do make sure wall heights, slab/roof heights, etc. are all correct so we can show clients a nice 3D model, so for the most part we have tight, accurate 3D models.

I think where we are "behind the times" is when we get to elevations and sections. These we do all as line drawings. We use the model as a backdrop to make sure we are on track and walls, etc are where they are supposed to be, but due to the level of detail our principals like to see, we find that making line drawings with fills are more detailed than anything else we know how to do.

I know we should look into the complex profiles/profile manager tool, I admit that we are usually too busy and the principals don't allow much time to further our knowledge in ArchiCAD, just enough time to do the project. We have explained that we can increase productivity by learning more, and now we have a few hours a week dedicated to "messing around" in the program. We don't add footings to basement walls, for example, because we just draw them in 2D in the sections.

So summarizing the questions:

1) How you do work? All 3D sections/elevation? Line?

2) What tools do you use?

3) What tools/methods would you recommend using to be more 3D (thus more efficient)?

[Anonymous]

Oohhh quick.

We can meet in halfway, lets say somewhere in Pennsylvania, for the beer.

[Anonymous]

Just take the plunge! Use every bit of ArchiCAD as much as you can (I still struggle with the Door/Windows/Room Schedule, but that's about it). I took the plunge 2-3 years ago and am finally at a level where I cannot image doing it the old way (2D elevations and such). Good Luck.

+pablo

[Thomas Holm]

David wrote:
By default, Adobe Acrobat saves .PDF files in legacy file format. Depending on which version of Acrobat you have, the legacy format could be saved as far back as version 5.0. This creates considerable file overhead. If you set your Acrobat save function to be a later version, this could reduce you file size considerably. Also, check the bitmap/raster conversion settings and set the compressions to as high as you feel comfortable (for the least loss of output quality).

Beg to differ here. (I know what you say is Adobe's official standpoint, and might be true for standard drawings, but..)

If you have overlaid transparent items in your drawings, like overlaid fills with transparent background pen, or transparent included bit-map images, (tiffs), pdfs from Archicad can grow considerably. A way to get rid of this issue is to save as an older Acrobat version, I think ver. 4 or older. You can convert it with Acrobat Pro.

Since old PDF versions don't support transparency, that is removed in the conversion (while mostly preserving the looks), and the PDF shrinks!

[Anonymous]

This is a great discussion. The small office I work for has always turned all elevations and sections in drawings and I'm now trying to pioneer the conversion across to 'live' sections and elevations for all the reasons discussed previously.
I've just completed some as built drawings for a small renovations job we have on and spent more time on modelling than I usually would. The results have been good so far but I still can't seem to achieve the drawing depth in the elevations that my boss likes. Using Marked distant area helps but I think I still need to 'overline' certain elements to bring them forward or back in the drawing which I'd like to avoid. Do people use different pensets for plans, elevations and sections to achieve drawing/lineweight depth? Any other suggestions?
I've attached an example of the 'Live' Elevation and an example of a normal sketch design elevation we would produce.
My boss has a real thing for lineweights so I need to get them to work the way he likes in order to introduce more 3D into the office.

[Rick Thompson]

tambi wrote:
This is a great discussion. The small office I work for has always turned all elevations and sections in drawings .... My boss has a real thing for lineweights so I need to get them to work the way he likes in order to introduce more 3D into the office.

I can relate fully to this dilemma. I started drafting in the late 60's in high school, so line quality and "snapping out things" was the only consideration. Once I started with AC (4.5) you didn't have the tools we now have so I always made elevations dead to tweak the line values. I had a lot of pride in the quality based on those precepts. But, that's just ego hanging on to the past I did hang on to those "ways" way to long into AC as we now have it. I do stock plans so I have many I still use. It is painful each and every time I open one of these plns up with dead sections and elevations to convert then. You can still tweak the live ones if needed, but if you change your perception and see different potentials, I find I don't need to. I now like what I turn out much better than what I use to, but they are different. You can generate drawings better reading (in my opinion) in much less time. Plus, and this is the biggie, modifications are a breeze. I posted a building section at the start of this thread which I am very happy with. Maybe someone who's mind is set to have very heavy lines to snap things out would not like it... o'well.

Good luck with your efforts converting the boss, he might be happy in the long run.

ps.. that horizontal line at the roof in the rear of your drawing can be easily removed by backing off the joining roof just 1/8" or so (at the overhang... not the whole ridge). It happens at eyebrow conditions and gables like you have. I think it is a bug, but GS sees it differently

[David Collins]

Rick wrote:
I had a lot of pride in the quality based on those precepts.

I was halfway through a lunch at a conference that had nothing to do with either architecture or computers when I realized the guy sitting next to me, Dan Drake, was one of the original founders of Autodesk.

He said architects gave them the hardest time right from the very start, with their esoteric construction drawing aesthetic: line weights and snap, lines that slightly overrun at intersections, lines that start out thick then go thin and end up thick again, idiosyncratic chisel-point fonts with faint guidelines, hatches and poché that were a delight to the eye...

None of the structural or mechanical engineers were complaining. The poor AutoCAD guys were tearing their hair out just trying to figure out what the heck the architects were talking about, let alone how to do that sort of thing on a computer.

[jbArch]

Rick wrote:
I now like what I turn out much better than what I use to, but they are different. You can generate drawings better reading (in my opinion) in much less time.

Rick, what are you doing to make elevation views read better? I still don't use live elevations, because I find that lineweight is the best tool for conveying depth / plane changes.

The example tambi gave earlier reads well because of the shadow casting, but I don't feel like shadows are appropriate on construction drawings... maybe I'm just hanging on to the old ways?

cheers,
JB

[Anonymous]

I agree JBarch, the only thing adding depth to the drawing are the shadows which I wouldn't include in contract docs.
I'd also be interested to know how people are achieving depth in their 'live' elevations

[Rick Thompson]

jbArch wrote:
Rick, what are you doing to make elevation views read better? I still don't use live elevations, because I find that lineweight is the best tool for conveying depth / plane changes.

cheers,
JB

Sorry for the delay, out of town.

Well, reading "better" may not be agreed on by many:) It becomes relative to the whole picture to me. The elevations are similar to that section I posted earlier in this thread. (I'll attach the side of the same plan, same view as the section). I think being able to add siding, roofing, etc so quickly, compared to hand drawing, is extremely valuable to get the message across. The bottom line is looking at it and quickly grasping what the intent is. I don't like shadows either.. for this purpose anyway. I'm not as obsessive as I once was, so that might explain a lot:) You can make shi#t look good with a jazzy drawing, and snow a client. I'd rather produce nice drawings without spending hours and hours that are just honest and clean, and usable for future modifications. You can add line value to an auto drawing as long as the lines are heaver. So snap away.

[jbArch]

Rick, this elevation looks great. One thing I haven't grasped yet: How do you get the smaller gable beyond to read as a lighter shade? (the one seen from the side.) It seems like whatever you do to change it would screw up the rear elevation when you are trying to look at that gable head-on.

It really looks like you have found a way to assign different pencolors to roofs depending on how they are viewed... am I right?

thanks,
JB