Why Archicad ?

[Anonymous]

I have worked in Archicad for the past 1.5 years after being trained in Autocad for a year. I fell in love with Archicad and am about to purchase version 9 from a Graphisoft Dealer. My question is just a general one to open up some pro's and con's. Why should I continue to stay with Archicad when it is so hard to find a job in it as opposed to Autocad and what sets it apart from Autocad ? What about products like Intergraph has like Smartplant 3d. Should I learn it instead of investing more time in Archicad ?

Thanks and thanks for a great forum.

Born2Draft

[archislave]

Get it straight guys ... I never said foreigners (furriners) as Granny would say I said that these plug-ins are being done in foreign countries. I agree that we are one big community and that is one thing I love about Archicad. Foreign came out because that is what it feels like. They really don't understand the specifics of the US market or many others. When I look at these tools for the most part they don't represent the lightweight, stick built, veneer clad stuff we do here. It is not their fault because of limited resources and how can they possibly do the in-depth research for each country. That is where Graphisoft should have an office in each Country.

BMW, Toyota, and Lexus have their common products but do a ton of research to tailor them for specific markets regulations and standards. Some even build their cars in their target markets...

As far as complaining about having to do a story just for the upper walls. Yes I do need to have that view also. But wouldn't it be better to have a single exterior wall where the cladding could stop or change as you go up. Brick wainscoting giving way to wood siding which is typical etc. The ability to choose where the plan cut is being taken is key. I say this because having one wall with a single reference line is much simpler with changes. Now I have to go to the upper walls and turn on ghost layer to make sure it is lining up.

[Anonymous]

The main issue is not really all the "problems" with the software as it is understandable that it will always be a constant work-in-progress, and that it will evolve as needed. The biggest issue I think is lack of proper marketing. Autodesk has done a wonderful job of marketing and of making their software the "CAD Standard". How many architecture schools (talking US here) now DON'T require you to take an AutoCad course? And all that because it is perceived as the standard. Conversely, how many schools in the US even offer an ArchiCAD course, much less allow it as an alternative? There's exactly 2 schools in the Chicagoland area that offer classes on ArchiC according to Graphisoft's site, none of which are accredited architecture schools - and one's a high school. So then who are these classes geared towards?

As a business owner, I've already trained 4+ people in our office on how to use the software, most of who knew AutoC and were having a hard time with ArchiC. That's time I couldn't train them about architecture (related yes, but not really the same). And as an owner, I'm getting tired of doing the training myself, or even paying for it by sending them to classes or hiring someone else to do the training. I would much rather have employees learn it in school and save me some time and money. That's why I am dumbfounded by GS' lack of interest in getting out in the academic world and starting to plug the software in that arena. If you would want your user base to increase, who better than the students who are on top of the latest technological advances (usually) to get the word out. Unfortunately, not only is GS not doing this, but they're also increasing the price of their software. So then it makes perfect sense to ask "Why Archicad".

Anyway, as (I think it was Dwight) mentioned, why complain on here. Good question. Maybe (I HOPE) the powers that be will notice and will do something about it. Personally I love the software and would LOVE to be able to continue to use it, but I don't think that I should be doing GS' job - that of marketing and teaching the world (now if they'd pay me... that'd be a different story, though I think there'd be more qualified people out there anyway). I just want to be able to do architecture... and boy how I miss the administrative stuff

Is this something that should NOT concern us as users? Or is this none of our business? Or should I voice these concerns to someone else? A different post, a poll, ...? Or is this more like peein' in the wind? (...K, I'll stop)

[Dwight]

I would call this a viscous circle because it is thick and slow-moving.

My colleague in Vancouver attempted to run a course in ArchiCAD here at the technical college priced comparable to the AutoCAD course. Could never get the minimum students. Of course, Vancouver IS an ArchiCAD hinterland.

Beat me for saying this, but I don't think that ArchiCAD knowledge has much to do with architectural education, and that is because architecture (not technical students) time should be spent in higher study, not in addressing complex, rapidly-evolving technology.

SketchUp for architecture students!
ArchiCAD for grown-ups!

The other issue, and I welcome comments from those more experienced with hiring, is that I have never met a student who could really operate software like an operator should. They say they have Photoshop, but they can retouch a photo, sort of. They say they have Illustrator and they made an ink jet brochure in it. They say they have AutoCAD and they come with their little cheatsheet for the commands.

Right. People don't know what they don't know.

It takes weeks of intense full-time professional work to get fluent in anything, whether or not they gave you some kid stuff at school.

[Anonymous]

Sergio wrote:
The main issue is not really all the "problems" with the software as it is understandable that it will always be a constant work-in-progress, and that it will evolve as needed. The biggest issue I think is lack of proper marketing. Autodesk has done a wonderful job of marketing and of making their software the "CAD Standard". How many architecture schools (talking US here) now DON'T require you to take an AutoCad course? And all that because it is perceived as the standard. Conversely, how many schools in the US even offer an ArchiCAD course, much less allow it as an alternative? There's exactly 2 schools in the Chicagoland area that offer classes on ArchiC according to Graphisoft's site, none of which are accredited architecture schools - and one's a high school. So then who are these classes geared towards?

As a business owner, I've already trained 4+ people in our office on how to use the software, most of who knew AutoC and were having a hard time with ArchiC. That's time I couldn't train them about architecture (related yes, but not really the same). And as an owner, I'm getting tired of doing the training myself, or even paying for it by sending them to classes or hiring someone else to do the training. I would much rather have employees learn it in school and save me some time and money. That's why I am dumbfounded by GS' lack of interest in getting out in the academic world and starting to plug the software in that arena. If you would want your user base to increase, who better than the students who are on top of the latest technological advances (usually) to get the word out. Unfortunately, not only is GS not doing this, but they're also increasing the price of their software. So then it makes perfect sense to ask "Why Archicad".

Anyway, as (I think it was Dwight) mentioned, why complain on here. Good question. Maybe (I HOPE) the powers that be will notice and will do something about it. Personally I love the software and would LOVE to be able to continue to use it, but I don't think that I should be doing GS' job - that of marketing and teaching the world (now if they'd pay me... that'd be a different story, though I think there'd be more qualified people out there anyway). I just want to be able to do architecture... and boy how I miss the administrative stuff

Is this something that should NOT concern us as users? Or is this none of our business? Or should I voice these concerns to someone else? A different post, a poll, ...? Or is this more like peein' in the wind? (...K, I'll stop)

Do not stop keep on saying some one has to listen to
Joseph

[Dwight]

Users should write directly to the following people:

- their reseller - reseller meeting in Las Vegas: two weeks.

- product manager for ArchiCAD.

- the supreme commander.

http://www.graphisoft.com/company/press_zone/press_resource_kit/opboard.html

[Anonymous]

Dwight wrote:
My colleague in Vancouver attempted to run a course in ArchiCAD here at the technical college priced comparable to the AutoCAD course. Could never get the minimum students.

One of the interns that I trained was so taken with the software that he got another seven interested in it, all of which would have GLADLY taken a course, if only one would have been offered. Architecture school? Check. More students possibly interested? Check. Reseller participation? Oops. Great guys, great help for the office, great promises for teaching help, but apparently not interested in following through on the teaching side of things.

Beat me for saying this, but I don't think that ArchiCAD knowledge has much to do with architectural education, and that is because architecture (not technical students) time should be spent in higher study, not in addressing complex, rapidly-evolving technology.

Big difference between what it is and what it should be. You can have AutoCad drafters, but don't think that you'll see ArchiCad drafters. Students are naturally more inclined towards software solutions. I taught a class and asked for hand-drawn wall sections. Biggest complain when it came time to turn stuff in? Paper not available at the bookstore (I'd asked for vellum).

... I have never met a student who could really operate software like an operator should. They say they have Photoshop, but they can retouch a photo, sort of...

And even that would be better than having to teach them the whole concept of BIM from the beginning. I'll take any bit that I can get. It'll save me tons in training costs.

It takes weeks of intense full-time professional work to get fluent in anything, whether or not they gave you some kid stuff at school.

See above

[Dwight]

Would there be ten guys in Chicago who want my LightWorks Seminar?

[Anonymous]

I'd love to go, but we don't get into rendering that much. We're having a tough time trying to get out our basic drawings, much less any renderings. Besides most of our clients don't need or want to pay for that.

Students on the other hand... now we're talking. I'll try to pass the word along.

[Djordje]

Sergio wrote:
Big difference between what it is and what it should be. You can have AutoCad drafters, but don't think that you'll see ArchiCad drafters.

Maybe that is because of the fact that AutoCAD inherently supports the manual way of work, while ArchiCAD does not?

I do think that the term "drafter" is wrong at least when we talk ArchiCAD or Revit. VB/BIM just does NOT allow for the traditional "I scribble on napkins and you draft it" approach.

That is another problem. Architectural schools still teach the same system as in 16th century (in foreign countries, Europe to be precise ...) and architecture related businesses still operate on the same principle of "one brain, many hands".

In my 17 years of using CAD in the architectural and construction profession in general, the number of people, professional education notwithstanding, who could REALLY use a given CAD software is less than 10. All of them could meddle.

I trained more than a thousand. Of those, maybe to my shame, I can say that five of them surpassed me in AutoCAD (not so hard now ...), one in rendering in general, and two in ArchiCAD.

Am I a bad teacher or is it something else?

The point is - the software is not as easy to become a part of your work as pencils, rulers, T squares and parallel bars are (were?). Mind you, in the manual days (whoever is old enough to remember them, meaning 40+) you did have the drafting experts and the others, who did the job competently.

So, the same is with the software? No. The problem is, not EVERY software is used in the same way, and the chasm between the AutoCAD manual drafting based CAD (Computer Aided Drafting) and ArchiCAD/Revit VB/BIM based CADD (Computer Aided Design and Drafting) is reflected in many ways - and, the actual usage of the software itself is the least of the problems.

Will be off the soapbox in a sec...

I have to say that I agree with Dwight. Whatever school you finished, you just have the foundation and a BASE for the professional work. You don't actually KNOW anything, your learning just begins. Expecting students to be proficient in any software in any architectural office is the same as expecting a newly passed driver to drive a cab in New York or a taxi in London. Yes, you know the moves, but you don't have the knowledge and the experience.

Now, why ArchiCAD? Because it does not let you just make a set of drawings by drafting them. You HAVE TO think how things work together, and how are they going to be built, be it American stick house with paper plastered on the sticks, European brick and conrete, or anything else in between. That is, PROVIDED you use it as intended.

For that, the responsibles are not the universities, or Graphisoft. The responsible ones are the resellers, the people on the ground. THEY should pester universities, small practices, big offices, and TRAIN the users.

Use the link Dwight gave. Pester your reseller. Call Link when he is back in the US. Don't stop.

Oh, one more thing - start thinking global, even if you are American. The world will be a better place if we all start doing that. Just like Tom W said!

Hope you don't mind a long one ...

[Eduardo Rolon]

Djordje wrote:
That is another problem. Architectural schools still teach the same system as in 16th century (in foreign countries, Europe to be precise ...) and architecture related businesses still operate on the same principle of "one brain, many hands"...

Actually it depends on the School, at the one I teach the emphasis (based on ArchiCAD I might add) is to build the design within the computer. The way the curriculum is evolving is to teach procedures on how to "extract" the 2D drawings from the base 3D application, no matter if it is SketchUp, Maya, 3DStudio, Cinema or ArchiCAD. At this point (one year into it) we are starting to get better results. Basically the way it is setup is to teach first SketchUp then how to extract the "traditional" 2D drawings and fix the lineweights (either using AutoCAD or a combo of Illustrator and Photoshop) and we are teaching this as a the first required drawing class for new students. Then we have an AutoCAD and 2D drawing class since it is unavoidable, then a basic graphic layout class (Photoshop, Illustrator and inDesign), a 3D rendering class (Artlantis and either 3DStudio or Maya) and lastly a AC class for the students in their 3rd year and up.

It is still early in the process but the input from the students is good and their results are getting better. The rest of the faculty is another matter...

On another note we have to make a distinction between knowledge adquired by teaching and that gained by experience. This is the reason students don't seem to be all that proficient when they graduate. They have not been exposed to all the different problems of the "Real World", for them every situation is a new one. How many times in school did you draw a Door and Window Schedule or Bathroom Interior Elevations?