How do YOU use Archicad ??

[Anonymous]

I would like to know how everyone here uses Archicad

The way you are 'meant' and trained to use Archicad according to Graphisoft is to do a reasonable 3d model using composites etc, project elevations and sections, and then rely mainly on patches and 2d lines to create the 1:20 sections and details. Who does this?

I've heard of firms adding nearly all of their construction detail to the 3d model itself creating much of the information that will end up in the details and sections automatically. This must be a good way to get accurate cost schedules from Archicad I would guess. But this must be really time consuming. Who does this way? Doesnt it make the model really slow and difficult to read? I suppose your layering conventions have to be spot on for this.

Does anyone create an Archicad 3d model just purely for aesthetic visuals and rely on Autocad or 2d Archicad for everything else?

Who here just uses 3d Archicad for the plans to enable doors and windows to be inserted and then does everything else in 2d?

Does anyone go the whole hog and use Archicad as a proper BIM model for heating calcs, daylighting, scheduling, as well as generated elevs/sections/details etc?

I would really appreciate hearing everyones views on this. Can a moderator make this poll sticky for a few days please?

[Chazz]

I'm a deep modeler too. I keep my derivative data (sections, elevations, schedules, etc.) mostly live and use the "copy and lift" technique for most nonstandard detailing.

Occasionally, I collaborate with 2D-centric AC users and they really deride my reliance on deep 3D. It is true that if a project is simple and does not change much over the design duration and you are extracting only minimal section/elevation views, you can sometimes get a set out faster by relying on 2D. However, it's hard to "future-proof" your documents when you start to rely on lines and fills. Also, the prospect of changes becomes more dreaded and onerous with heavy 2D reliance.

Modeling is sort of a metaphor for life. I like to keep it honest, keep it live and keep it updated.

[__archiben]

Rob wrote:
I've got a better example, what about a layer called: "lines above" ... that time I see through the red mist...

yeah . . . i see that too sometimes. although mostly anything that is a 2D line to be shown on the floor plan ends up on the 'floor plan: lines' layer . . . whatever it is!

i'm really at the giving up point with it. there's only so much flapping around in ever decreasing circles that i can do. the conversation normally goes something along the lines of . . .

- WHY IS THERE A LAYER CALLED FLOOR PLAN LINES IN MY FILE?!
- because i needed to draw something on the floor plan.
- okaaaaay. what did you need to draw?
- it was a <insertsomethingicouldntbefuckedtomodelhere>.
- right. so. why didn't you draw it on the <thingyoucouldntbefuckedtomodel> layer? then it would appear in all of the other layer combinations where <thingsyoucouldntbefuckedtomodel> appear . . .
- because it was a line.

[Anonymous]

~/archiben wrote:
yeah . . . i see that too sometimes. although mostly anything that is a 2D line to be shown on the floor plan ends up on the 'floor plan: lines' layer . . . whatever it is!

You'll be really angry at us then because thats what we do all the time! The fact that I see we are all alone in the poll with our 2d use to date is interesting.

But I still feel that until the program becomes far more easy to use in terms of creating custom objects you will continue to see lots of 2d line use. It's not about being bothered to model objects in 3d its that the use of SEOs and god forbid 'reprogramming' library objects is light years ahead of what the bulk of architects are capable of.

[Anonymous]

I finally decided to vote "Some other way." since I work as many different ways as I have clients. This has ranged (among the more efficient ones) from space planning with little or no concern for the 3D model (walls, doors, etc used solely for the 2D plan view) to fully detailed models with ornate custom trim and no 2D drafting aside from annotations and details.

The way I (and my clients) work is "Whatever gets the job done". As most of you have probably figured out by now, I am not a doctrinaire, model to the last detail Virtual Builder. When it is possible and appropriate to the circumstances modeling is much faster than drafting (and redrafting and coordinating and...) but there are plenty of times when it doesn't make sense either due to the nature of the job or the abilities of the staff.

[Jere]

I'm still learning ArchiCAD and consider myself an intermediate user (with no GDL knowledge). I have strived to model as much as possible to accurately produce drawings. I'm not yet using any schedules, lists, etc. though as I haven't quite figured them out. But all the main drawings -- plans, sections, elevations -- are about 90% modelled at this point. The only things I don't model are things that I can't because I haven't learned how or because of my lack of knowledge of GDL script. Details (1:10 or 1:20) are fixed up in 2d, but the amount of fixing is getting less and less the more I learn.

I produce, at this point, only construction documentation and rough 3d models for clients. I have MUCH to learn about rendering.

[Anonymous]

Love Archicad and try to get as much as i can out of it....!

[Karl Ottenstein]

nats wrote:
The fact that I see we are all alone in the poll with our 2d use to date is interesting.

Not alone anymore, I see. 😉

For years I have heard stories of people using AC primarily in 2D but had never seen it in person until earlier this month. I was quite shocked to see walls used only for plans and then elevations drawn all over the main floor plan with 2D lines and fills, looking like an AutoCAD workspace. No layer management, no views, nothing. Brute force onto layouts.

I was equally amazed that this firm upgraded religiously every year, even though they used no new features of AC since 4.5. (Yet, their computers were hopelessly out of date.) Now, AC 11 has quite a few features for such a firm, but I doubt that they will take the time to learn them either.

In any case, the point of this ramble is that this firm had no desire to learn anything beyond doing things in 2D...and certainly never visits these forums...and so would not vote in this survey. I suspect most readers here are present as part of their personal continuing education and/or problem solving...and thus are either beyond 2D-only use, or trying to get beyond it.

Cheers,
Karl

[Anonymous]

Karl wrote:

nats wrote:
The fact that I see we are all alone in the poll with our 2d use to date is interesting.

Not alone anymore, I see. 😉

For years I have heard stories of people using AC primarily in 2D but had never seen it in person until earlier this month. I was quite shocked to see walls used only for plans and then elevations drawn all over the main floor plan with 2D lines and fills, looking like an AutoCAD workspace. No layer management, no views, nothing. Brute force onto layoutsl

Its probably someone else from our firm!!

I am still learning, I only got the average 58% in the Archicad competency test. I was very interested to read how some people though start with basic 3d with projected elevs and sections, use 2d lines over and 2d details as they learn more about modelling custom objects in 3d and gradually expand the capabilities of the model. I think this is where I will be heading. I suppose its just a matter of taking the plunge and finding a job without very tight time constraints concerning the planning submission!

One thing though about whole 3d modelling of projects that has always made me wonder - does anyone model DPCs and cavity trays even in 3d or do they generally put these over the 3d sections in 2d? Some of you say you do the whole thing in 3d but I would think this kind of element would be very difficult to do in a 3d model when its in the middle of a wall!

[Ralph Wessel]

nats wrote:
One thing though about whole 3d modelling of projects that has always made me wonder - does anyone model DPCs and cavity trays even in 3d or do they generally put these over the 3d sections in 2d? Some of you say you do the whole thing in 3d but I would think this kind of element would be very difficult to do in a 3d model when its in the middle of a wall!

Modelling "everything" is probably a bit of a fallacy anyway. Essentially you are producing the model to ensure all parties have a sufficient understanding of the building - the designer, to be certain their proposal stacks up; the client, to be confident they know what they are paying for; the local bureaucracy, to ensure conformance with regulations; and the builder, to realise the finished product. You have to constantly ask yourself what is the best way to communicate that information. Too much detail can be as great a problem as too little. I know full well many buildings I've drawn have nails in them, but I never give a moments thought to where they are much less draw them.

And different projects have different requirements - some framers I work with go to a level of detail which shows individual pegs and bolts. For their market, that matters.

I generally model as much as is necessary to produce good walk-throughs and images, which usually translates to good elevations and sections too. Modelled plans sometimes have to be patched, but often print as-is. Elevations sometimes need parts masked with fills and I usually add a bit of depth with additional lines, but most of it is straight from the model. Sections require a bit more masking than elevations because it is much faster than fiddling about trying to get the model 'just right'. I wouldn't show details at like DPC etc at that scale (no more than notes).

There is always a measure of abstraction required - the emphasis is on communication - and this is especially true of details. My 3D models usually contribute little to the finished detail because a literal representation often doesn't read very well. Sectional details are often exploded to some extent to show a clear delineation between different components, especially membrane or sheet materials which would otherwise vanish in the line-work.

In summary, I work pretty much as GS recommends. I did one project in 2D a few months back, but only because I was helping an AutoCAD user in a pinch and they were too far down the track to make a model. Some things were faster/easier, but on the whole it made me really appreciate how useful the model is, especially for co-ordination. I've attached a smattering of snapshots to illustrate the level of detail I work to. The sections/elevations are modelled with some overlaid line/fills. The detail is pure 2D.

Ralph.

[Anonymous]

Thats really interesting thanks Ralph for that. Those drawings look really good. I can see you have embelished them quite a bit with 2d work - the standard Graphisoft working method.

I would be really interested to also see a similar set of drawings from someone above who has said they try to do all their detailing in the model - to see what their sections look like and how they have assembled the details from slabs and wall tools etc projected from the model directly. I'm sure you would still require quite a bit of embellishment from 2d lines and fills etc to get purely generated elevs sections and details to look decent but stand to be corrected.

Maybe its just my purely generated drgs that always look rubbish and with a bit of careful thought to penstyles and layers they can be made to look much better?

Nats