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?

[Anonymous]

I model as much as possible, including 'hidden' construction detail like beams, drainage etc...

Nothing enrages me more than lines and fills. Unless they are where they belong, in the detail window. I've seen far more errors in 2D drawings than 3D models. Especially when people go and put white fills over everything to cover up their sloppy modelling.

[Karl Ottenstein]

I model as much as possible, automating as much as possible in general...receiving a huge productivity boost by doing so. The Virtual Building is for more than just automatic documentation ... it is for finding design and buildability issues very early in the process so that the construction crew will not find them. Further, the better the model, the more you relish, rather than dread, changes from the client or builder.

The only 2D work that I do involves (a) masking fills to alter appearance (e.g., dashed foundation lines in section), (b) annotation, of course, and (c) details that need to only show up in enlarged views and thus would be unproductive to model...but those details (e.g., anchor bolts) are overlaid on live model views.

Karl

[Rod Jurich]

Karl wrote:
I model as much as possible, automating as much as possible in general...////Karl

Totally agree with Karl.
In fact I have NO layers named/used for 2D lines as such.

[Stress Co_]

For plans and Elevations I use the "live" model with, hopefully, no 2D patch work, sans notes.

Sections: I use the model to create accurate 2D drawings. If changes are made... the model gets updated first.. then the 2D sections. Maybe someday I'll make the jump to "live" sections.

Lots of 3D "sketches" (during the design phase). A 3D perspective seems to get the point across better than a 2D elevation.

[Richard Morrison]

Rod wrote:
In fact I have NO layers named/used for 2D lines as such.

Rod,
An intriguing concept that would certainly reduce the number of layers. But I'm wondering where you put 2D annotation on a floor plan that you'd want to turn off for, say, an electrical plan.

[__archiben]

Richard wrote:
An intriguing concept that would certainly reduce the number of layers. But I'm wondering where you put 2D annotation on a floor plan that you'd want to turn off for, say, an electrical plan.

i think when rod's referring to 2D lines he's talking about any 2D element that represents a building element, not 2D annotation elements.

this is also the method that i use... there are three types of layers:

those that contain elements that represent building components; those that contain annotation components; and finally layers that i call "tool layers" - for specific purposes such as SEOs, rough working, scanned images, etc...

it pains me that people still see the split between "2D" and "3D" as the predominant force! the reality of BIM is that the 'split' is between "Building" and "Annotation". hey, you could draw lines to represent wall, and use 3D text for annotation . . . as long as the lines go on the layer (class!) representing the building's walls and the 3D text goes on the layer assigned to whatever annotation type is being employed.



i think what is disturbing is that graphisoft don't supply out-of-the-box templates and 'best practice' tutorials that make that clear. i'm still purging layers here called "Floor Plan: Lines" . . . . arghhhhh


~/archiben

[Rob]

i think what is disturbing is that graphisoft don't supply out-of-the-box templates and 'best practice' tutorials that make that clear. i'm still purging layers here called "Floor Plan: Lines" . . . . arghhhhh

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

[Rakela Raul]

I model as much as possible

same with me, i even model the A/C Duct Work from our consultants to make sure we dont have conflicts with structural members (i got screwed with ac10 which killed the Ductwork addon though but hoping to get it back soon with ac11)
and then it is a pleasure spitting out construction documents..of course, and as anybody else, i drop in my layouts, pdf's, pmk's, anything in any format available to depicts typical details.

good question Nat, archicad is doing good to you

[Rod Jurich]

~/archiben wrote:

Richard wrote:
An intriguing concept...//

i think when rod's referring to 2D lines he's talking about any 2D element that represents a building element, not 2D annotation elements.

this is also the method that i use... there are three types of layers:.///////

~/archiben

Well said Ben, couldn't have put it better myself.
Happy to send you my layer structure, Richard, if interested.