Sections - what's your approach?

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to determine the best approach to adding detail to sections for a residential project. Specifically, where the foundation, floor sandwich, and wall base all come together: do you model everything with custom profiles, or do you keep things simple and fill in detail in 2D?

[Anonymous]

Krippahl wrote:
As I teach VB at an architecture university for 5 years now, the problem of not being able to extract perfect looking drawings from the model has been discussed many times, with students and colleges.

I also design, so I totally understand the need to communicate clearly ones intends, and also the price of poorly coordinated drawings

Here are my 5 cents:

- Drawing is more flexible than modeling, so there is always stuff that takes much more work to represent correctly on the model than in a flat cad drawing.

- You can model practically everything to obtain "perfect" drawings, but the longer it takes to do the more money you loose.

- For the same amount of effort, 2d drawings are probably better looking than 2d from a model.

But:

The clarity of drawings you may loose from doing a 100%model derived drawing is largely compensated by the coordination and correctness you get from it.

So, if the choice is between pretty drawings that are based on paper and pen conventions from last century or correct drawings, I think this is a no brainer.

As long as the constructor understands our intend, you should not go any further in trying to perfect the looks of your drawings, especially if this will rob work hours from the job you where given: designing.

James Murray explains this much better, as usual: http://www.onland.info/archives/2006/03/beauty_is_third.php

Very well put. I think the problem comes from working for architects who were taught and use these "last century" drawing techniques; they are harder to persuade to change to these newer ideas. I think I will slowly, piece by piece, change to 3D and see how it goes...

Thanks for all the thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Steven wrote:
Very well put. I think the problem comes from working for architects who were taught and use these "last century" drawing techniques; they are harder to persuade to change to these newer ideas. I think I will slowly, piece by piece, change to 3D and see how it goes...

Thanks for all the thoughts.

To me, the definition of "good looking" drawing, is that they will communicate the design well. The clearer the intent can be made, the better. And line hierarchy, good graphics, and orderly layout all work to that end. It is easy for stuff to get missed, particularly where a lot of the guys doing the building don't read english very well. It's been my experience that graphically good drawings help with the agency submittal process as well. As far as clarity, but also in the confidence that the plan checker has in the designer. There have been times that the code official has commented "Good looking drawings" and this made over the counter plan check go much faster (and one would assume internal plan check as well)

I've always prided myself on generating good looking drawings, but as I work through my first project in Archicad, I'm seeing the advantages of this system. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Anonymous]

recently i did an archicad course in perth.
the instructor was first class, there were 5 on the course. one was an old skool architect, the rest were young fellas, i was in between.

i have the greatest respect for the older guy who was doing the course trying to evolve with the trend.

i love hand drawn but CAD is the way forward and he knew that. so i guess he was trying was moving his pratice forward.
dinasours have the best knowledge but they must keep up.

they died in the end.

[Anonymous]

svenl wrote:

Steven wrote:
Very well put. I think the problem comes from working for architects who were taught and use these "last century" drawing techniques; they are harder to persuade to change to these newer ideas. I think I will slowly, piece by piece, change to 3D and see how it goes...

Thanks for all the thoughts.

To me, the definition of "good looking" drawing, is that they will communicate the design well. The clearer the intent can be made, the better. And line hierarchy, good graphics, and orderly layout all work to that end. It is easy for stuff to get missed, particularly where a lot of the guys doing the building don't read english very well. It's been my experience that graphically good drawings help with the agency submittal process as well. As far as clarity, but also in the confidence that the plan checker has in the designer. There have been times that the code official has commented "Good looking drawings" and this made over the counter plan check go much faster (and one would assume internal plan check as well)

I've always prided myself on generating good looking drawings, but as I work through my first project in Archicad, I'm seeing the advantages of this system. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

So, do you do your drawings 3D or 2D??

[Richard Morrison]

Steven wrote:
Looks good, but I don't know if the graphics would "fly" with the computer illiterate principals here...

Not sure what you believe is "lacking" in these graphics. And I'm pretty "old-school." (I was using a slide rule in my first structures class, if that tells you anything.)

[Anonymous]

Slide rules & old guys rock!

[Anonymous]

Richard wrote:

Steven wrote:
Looks good, but I don't know if the graphics would "fly" with the computer illiterate principals here...

Not sure what you believe is "lacking" in these graphics. And I'm pretty "old-school." (I was using a slide rule in my first structures class, if that tells you anything.)

And I'm too young to know what a slide rule is!

Really though, the "covered porch section" is not showing eave details, has line weight problems, and generally does not look as good graphically as the line drawn section. We show strapping, anchor bolts, flashing, rebar, actual window DWG's, insulated headers, perimeter & underslab drains with crushed stone, etc. etc. etc.

Now, do I think the 2D building will get built better than the 3D one? No. Is it better to work in 3D so you don't have as many mistakes, even though you may sacrifice some "beauty"? Yes. I have just never worked in 3D for section & elevations. I learned ArchiCAD 3 years ago when I started my current job, and 2D is how I was taught. It's not my choice, I would love to do all 3D, it's the office I work in and the reluctancy to switch based on graphical output concerns. I think I just need to keep on showing "the bosses" some good examples of 3D work and prove to them that it can look just fine. In the meantime, I am slowly developing my 3D skills and will someday be most if not all 3D. But to say you can make 3D look as good as a 2D is a fallacy, unless you put in twice the time, or more.

Sorry for the rant... I DO think it's worth it to go 3D, I'm just learning and it may take a while for my 3D sections to look as good as I want them to.

As "JoeyCAD" posted, "Would you spend thousands on a brand new Porche and only use 1st gear? Would you spend thousands on a high level 3D BIM CAD program and only use the 2D??!!!" No, that is why I am switching...

[Anonymous]

splitlid wrote:
dinasours have the best knowledge but they must keep up.
they died in the end.

Some did.
Others evolved into beautiful winged creatures, and now rule the skies.

[Anonymous]

As is often the case, we are easily distracted from the topic!(':P')


www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

[Richard Morrison]

Steven wrote:
Really though, the "covered porch section" is not showing eave details, has line weight problems, and generally does not look as good graphically as the line drawn section. We show strapping, anchor bolts, flashing, rebar, actual window DWG's, insulated headers, perimeter & underslab drains with crushed stone, etc. etc. etc.

This is a false dichotomy. Most sections that experienced ArchiCAD drafters produce are 3D with a little 2D "touch-up" overlaid on top. And frankly, in a small scale section, too much detail is inappropriate -- and showing just the appropriate level of detail is very "old school." Small scale sections should just be referencing the larger details, and maybe showing critical vertical dimensions. Insulated headers, anchor bolts, etc. are more appropriate for maybe 1"=1'-0" (1:10 metric) details or larger scale.