Committee on Design

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

RE:software

  • 1.  RE:software

    Posted 02-15-2012 05:15 AM
    well, if you're fed up with the software companies, maylines and koh-i-noors are going pretty cheap these days...  =]  no subscription fees - just ink and mylar, etc.

    seriously, i hate to be the one to put up the point that "you can't fight city hall", but you really can't.  the purchase, maintenance, and learning of constantly changing of design software (and subsequent productivity challenges) are just a fact of architectural life these days.  it's a fact of life for most professions - think of the evolving nature of technology in the medical field.  i dare say that a REVIT license (and the subscription) and a CAD workstation are a fair sight cheaper than an ultrasound machine or a CT scanner (even if an MD does make a sh!tload more money than your average architect...).  it's just aother of the many costs of doing business, just like ordering the latest set of sweets catalogs and a new can of pounce once was.

    -------------------------------------------
    Jeffrey Bender AIA NCARB LEED AP BD+C
    Design Associate
    ORW Architecture
    Medford OR
    -------------------------------------------





    -------------------------------------------
    Original Message:
    Sent: 02-14-2012 12:45
    From: Michael Lassel AIA LEED AP
    Subject: software


    I believe large and small firms are in the same boat. We are paying for seats not needed for a subscription program that provides limited value, with learning curves that decrease productivity attached to a hefty price tag. We are not being served.  
    -------------------------------------------
    Michael Lassel AIA LEED AP AIA
    Principal
    Lassel Architects
    South Berwick ME
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:software

    Posted 02-16-2012 09:18 AM
    I believe the solution is in the free market system. If enough architects walk away from Autocad to another software solution it will force Autocad to change their policy. Archicad, Vectorworks, Powercadd, etc have been around for years and have loyal following who would rather die than use Autocad.

    -------------------------------------------
    Robert Moore AIA
    Robert E. Moore Architect
    Monroe NC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:software

    Posted 02-16-2012 10:25 AM

    VECTORWORKS! Price is great and support is Excellent!
    -------------------------------------------
    Wanda Madrid-Diaz Assoc. AIA
    Designer
    WMDesign
    Arlington VA
    -------------------------------------------








  • 4.  RE:software

    Posted 02-17-2012 09:32 AM
    Through the 90's and up to 2004, we strove to stay in the front of the "tech" pack - We bought and used AutoCAD and 3rd party add-ons; wrote custom scripts and routines and bought workstations powerful enough to run the stuff.  In 2004 we took a step back to evaluate where our technology was and where it was likely to go.

    It was an "Emperor has no Clothes" moment.  We concluded that we were being ruled by the technology: struggling with training, forced to buy the newest and most expensive computers and losing control of our standards.

    We ended up trading all the licenses down to AutoCAD LT and buying a 3rd-party program that allowed LISP programs to run on the LT platform.  We simplified all our standards and actually made some gains in productivity.  Running LT also meant simplified training and cheaper machines.

    Today we are a 27-person, 2d shop running LT out of the box.  95% of our work is alteration and additions. Some of us would love to work in BIM, but we simply can't justify it; it's not the right tool for us.

    So, my advice: don't believe the hype; take the time to look at what you do and what you and your clients need and right-size your technology.

    -------------------------------------------
    Marc Parette AIA
    Principal
    Parette Somjen Architects, LLC
    Rockaway NJ
    -------------------------------------------








  • 5.  RE:software

    Posted 02-20-2012 02:23 PM


    -------------------------------------------
    Philip Lembo AIA
    Architect/Owner
    Philip Lembo Architect
    Clearwater FL
    -------------------------------------------
    Marc, I totally agree with you.  I am a sole practitioner and I still run AutoCAD LT 98.   It does everything I need to do in my practice and as long as my consultants can open AutoCAD 14 I have no problems communicating.   I have added to my arsenal Sketchup 8 Pro for 3D and animation and Podium for realistic rendering, both of which were reasonably priced.   For BIM, I use the novel idea of thinking 3 dimensionally, zoning my utilities and doing freehand sketches. 







  • 6.  RE:software

    Posted 02-20-2012 11:23 PM
    The software question is becoming a big one because the larger firms and larger clients have been embracing the new BIM world which typically includes Revit, Navisworks, Newforma, and a number of new technological vehicles for managing 3d data. It's a fairly powerful tool that I have been trained to use. But the software packages are expensive, and the learning curves are also increasing dramatically. After a decade of reducing learning curves, we seem to be moving the other direction now, serving a software industry that thrives on fixing things that may not be broken.

    These larger systems work OK for large firms with full time IT staff and in-house training classes, who work for clients with deep pockets. But for very small firms serving smaller clients, the capital cost for all of this computing power doesn't seem to make sense. The knowledge of the architect is more important than the skill of the software. The income and risk doesn't always justify the cost.

    There will always be a market for software that seeks to keep things simple and cheap with smaller learning curves. The success of Sketch-Up is a perfect example of cheap and simple beating out complexity. That's how ACAD made it's early victories in the late 1980's. As long as there is income pressure being placed on architectural employment there will be pressure against overspending on software power. Another added pressure is the fact that a very small group of well trained architects can now produce a building as big as any large firm. So one has to question which software tools are going to be of best value when architects need to be spending their precious time learning about buildings, rather than learning about more software commands.

    I also worry that this new world of "smart lines" replacing "dumb lines" is also making architects dumber. If the software tries to do too much 'thinking' for us, we will be raising a generation of architects who do not know how to think for themselves in solving a design/construction problem. Committing data to a line on a screen is great when documenting a completed building. But a design process is a creative process which wants that line to remain dumb so countless abstract possibilities can be considered for it's potential future.

    Best I can tell, BIM is of far more benefit to a contractor trying to build than it is for a designer trying to design. One is working with fixed facts while the other is working toward possibilities yet to be determined. I'll take a dumb line over a smart one any day for the benefit of creativity.

    -------------------------------------------
    Rich Farris, AIA
    Author of "Principles of Creativity, Architecture's Insight to Invention" (Amazon)
    Dallas, Texas
    -------------------------------------------








  • 7.  RE:software

    Posted 02-21-2012 06:07 AM
    Rich,
    I have couple points to agree with you there, and number of them to disagree on. And I'm local to you to boot. I myself have embraced the BIM world. I used to work for a local medium size Dallas firm that was 100% Revit. Before that they were all 2D Microstation. When I started my own company money was an issue but I bit the bullet and purchased a single license of Revit and have never looked back. I'll take 3D compiled data over 2D dumb data any day. I still use the software as a tool just like I always have.

    I also teach Revit to people. Both students and professionals. I've found the ones that "have been trained" to use the software are not trained to utilize it, but trained to operate the mechanics of it. Big disconnect between the two.

    One of my clients is a sole practitioner (mainly residential) who has held 2 seats of Revit for years. No IT department, no clients with large pockets (mostly). The 2 seats of Revit in his office run on some fairly old single processor single core systems with no major issues. Sure a new computer would be nice, but that is also a major misconception. A good desktop from one of the online retailers will run you under a grand and be more than enough power to run BIM software beautifully. Personally I run mine off a laptop I purchased in 2007.

    You wrote: "The knowledge of the architect is more important than the skill of the software." To challenge you I would say the knowledge of the architect is more important with the skill of the software than without it.

    One of the great challenges of getting into the BIM world is knowing your buildings better than you already think you do. A powerful 3D BIM software removes the "well we'll just figure it out in the field". The benefit is on the architect and being able to tell a contractor your intent with much more accuracy than before. It forces the designer or architect to know how parts of a building go together. Two parallel lines in a sea of black screen tells me nothing about your knowledge of what goes into that wall. All those facts that a contractor has to deal with are thought up by you in the first place. Why not have the facts straight while designing?

    Also if you're in the complete design creativity mode, many of the BIM software packages including Revit allow you to design with "dumb" masses and "dumb" generic walls, floors, roofs, etc. I'll take those dumb masses and walls in the name of creativity any day as well.

    I know the cost of software is a hard pill to swallow. If you notice many of the software developers have been offering discounts on last years products right before the new ones come out. You can buy almost every AEC software package Autodesk makes including Revit, Navisworks, AutoCAD, Max, etc., all together for under thirty five hundred now before the 2013 packages come out.

    I'm sorry you missed the BIM CES session back on the 2/17 at the DCFA. There will be others in the future. Or let me come by your office for a little while and I might be able to show you how the benefits outweigh the negatives.  

    -------------------------------------------
    Gordon McKenzie Assoc. AIA
    Tartan CAD Services
    Lewisville TX
    -------------------------------------------








  • 8.  RE:software

    Posted 02-22-2012 09:31 PM
    I agree with your points, especially the points about knowing the building better. Being able to work on a virtual model of the building completely outstrips anything in the "flat earth" world.

    -------------------------------------------
    Charles Graham AIA
    Architect
    O'Neal, Inc.
    Greenville SC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 9.  RE:software

    Posted 02-23-2012 11:08 AM


    -------------------------------------------
    Jerry Berggren AIA
    Berggren Architects
    Lincoln NE
    -------------------------------------------
    I find this discussion very fascinating.  We are an 8 person firm which has operates with the latest version of DataCAD - Ever hear of it?  To my knowledge we're possibly the only firm not located on one of the coasts to use this software.  We've had it since we first removed our Maylines and pin bars. 

    Our younger staff are lobbying for Revit and in my heart I know the day will come when we have at least one Revit station, but we are still able to design and have built quality buildings with our present software.  I attribute that to our education!  No matter how intelligent your software is - it is not the Architect!  True in the old days we had to use our heads more to imagine those designs and bring them into reality, but then like now, it's because we are Architects.

    I'm sure your debate will continue for sometime, just as the debate lasted for some time back in the 1960's or 70's when Frank Gehry once stated his concern that Xerox copies of architectural details would prevent that generation of Architects from learning just why we create details in the first place.

    Please continue to enjoy this debate - I will








  • 10.  RE:software

    Posted 02-23-2012 11:57 AM
    The pendulum seems to swing back and forth between complexity and simplicity. Seems like the past several years has seen a huge move toward complexity. For 10 or 20 years I had to spend very little time learning about software. Cad was going the way of the word processor, becoming virtually invisible.  And then suddenly the training needs escalated to rather absurd levels. Entire firms were having to retrain their staff. Sometimes I felt like I was spending more time learning technology than doing architecture. Now firms are flying employees to Autodesk University each year just to keep up. That's a wonderful deal for Autodesk. I don't know if that is really translating to more money for architects. I have my doubts. 

    Having worked on 200mb and 400mb models, the amount of work it takes to maintain huge models among multiple consultants is a full time job. Template maintenance requires incredible discipline. Staff has to be divided up to watch things like a hawk because screw ups to the model can create a mess beyond your imagination. Save times and start ups have regressed back to levels I have not seen since the 1980's. Certain kinds of modifications to a complex model can cause random items to disappear. The bigger the model, the harder it is to make major adjustments without losing your mind. But people keep telling me this is progress. Large teams have to basically spend weeks planning out the model strategy in advance of every starting work, otherwise, pain will come from unpredictable directions.
     
    To be honest, one of my favorite features of Revit is it's 2d capability. Nobody ever touts that, but I find Revit to be very fast and powerful in 2d. But if I had to work alone, I think I would probably prefer SketchUp, or something similar. It's cheap. Easy to learn. And getting more powerful each year, without baggage. This is exactly how ACAD won the market in the 1990's, by staying out of the way, and trying to help. Revit doesn't stay out of your way. It imposes itself on your entire world. I think I would like it better if the model were in a cloud, where all consultants could work on the same model at the same time. But affordable options for that don't seem to be quite ready yet. Sharing models today between consultants is a real pain in the . . . . . Autoarse.

    -------------------------------------------
    Rich Farris, AIA
    Author of "Principles of Creativity, Architecture's Insight to Invention" (Amazon)
    Dallas, Texas
    -------------------------------------------








  • 11.  RE:software

    Posted 02-24-2012 01:25 PM

    It is a pity that you consider learning th tools of the trade to be absurd. I imagine you are also opposed to learning the use of other new tools, such as smart phones, GPS direction finders, and other such devices that make our lives easier.

    I submit that every hour spent learning the time saving features of software brings back hundreds of hours of productivity. For example, I was the first in a large firm to learn Autodesk Desktop 1.0, and on my own time. When I had the opportunity, I committed to use Desktop exclusively on a new project involving retrofitting an existing building for a new process. I estimated the hours for the project by using historical data from similar projects with the same client. Using this method I had never exceeded my budgets, but I usually ended with an excess of about 0% to 7%.

    So, on this new project, I had to complete my training on the software, and I had to train a new employee, as well. The project ran its natural course of changes and modifcations, and at the end of the project I had 30% of my hours remaining.

    As the software has progressed, the time savings have increased. Projects that once would have required a lead architect, two assistant architects, four designers and eight drafters can now be completed more accurately and more quickly with two people. All of that time savings is due to software and its incumbent training.

    I don't care what you believe about keeping up with software and the training involved, you just can't argue with hard facts.

    I also have a hunch about subscription services with CAD vendors. Akin to other industries, where everyone expects a new and improved product every year, users have come to expect a new CAD revision every year. To illustrate the point I will  use another personal experience. This project involved new production methods for making a variety of dry laundry detergents. The process was installed in six plants in North America, and immediately allowed the manufacturer to produce a wholly new design of dry laundry detergent. However, the marketing group determined that a great deal of marketing favor could be taken by incrementally introducing the new process. So, instead having a whole new product in one fell swoop, the manufacturer could introduce a legal "new and improved" product every year for three years without changing out any process equipment.

    Likewise, the CAD producers have the incentive to make incremental improvements to their products without investing a great deal of effort from year to year. The user, though. also benefits from this by having less to learn every year.

    -------------------------------------------
    Charles Graham AIA
    Architect
    O'Neal, Inc.
    Greenville SC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 12.  RE:software

    Posted 02-24-2012 09:05 AM
    I feel that the ability to manipulate the software has an affect on the quality of design.  Some firms with staff that have the skills may include complex curves or other elements that break from the confines of post and beam construction.  Others that haven't gotten there yet, or the selected software used can't get there, temper their creativity.  Not all software performs the same once you move from linear applications.

    -------------------------------------------
    Eric Wessels AIA
    PencilWERKS
    Dallas Center IA
    -------------------------------------------








  • 13.  RE:software

    Posted 02-27-2012 07:43 AM
    Hello, This is my first post. I hope it is useful. I've always been interested in technology, both in it's fascination and it's distraction. Brief techno-history: First job in a large architecture office in Dallas 32 years ago when I was 15 years old (my mother was an architect in the office and got me the job); after working in the file room for a while they taught me to draft: plastic lead on Mylar - yuck! The leads broke constantly. Rapidiograph ink on Mylar was OK, but the pen tips tended to clog. At the time I deeply admired the blueprints (white lines on blue background) of old ink-on-linen drawings. College (Linguistics degre) '81-'85 in Virginia; worked one year in a local office and took two architecture classes: all pencil on vellum, which I still like to this day. Kitchen installer-then-drafter-then-designer in Dallas '86-'89, still pencil on vellum. Architecture school '89-'92 in Texas, mostly pencil on vellum, some ink on vellum or Mylar. Of course, bass wood models - the best! Also took a course in 3-D CAD - Microstation Intergraph, as I recall literally drawing each line by inputting coordinates. A pain, but I loved it. Fashioning that 3-D "reality" with your own hands was seductive. '92-'94 - Job in Boston on a design team for large hospital patient care towers: we drew in pencil and ink on vellum and Mylar, and made lots of foam massing models and paper detail models, had some professional models made. In the office some of the team started drawing plans in AutoCAD. But we drew the elevations by hand, even for the CD's. '94-2000 - Job in Boston designing airports; learned AutoCAD R14 and enjoyed it, though a little frustrating, but still designed a lot on even very large projects in pencil on vellum. Construction drawing sets all in CAD though. When AutoCAD 2000 came out, for the first time I felt: "now this is really useful.". Somehow the user interface improved a lot in that step, in my opinion. One large project (1.5M SF) we hired someone to build a detailed 3-D model in an off-brand program ("Silver-something"). Great to have the model, but too detailed and it started to bog down and crash. 2000-2004 - Design director of an office in Atlanta: continued with combination of design in pencil and CAD, all CD's in CAD; had some staff who could model in 3-D and make nice renderings. I was frustrated because I didn't know how to use the software (3-D Viz, 3-D Max) and it seemed very complex. The AutoCAD 3-D models were not easy for anyone but the person drawing it to understand (until they were rendered). Started to noticed that with most people using CAD they "saw" a reality inside the machine because they had built every line, but someone walking up to it couldn't see that. Difficult to discuss what is "on someone's desk.". Noticing major difficulties with line weights and the tradition of architectural drawing language in which heavy lines are plan cuts, etc. Many CAD drawings with terrible, "illegible" line weights that had to be corrected. 2004-2008 - Design director in a large office in DC. Became an early adopter (not earliest, but early) in the office of Revit. Started with 1M SF mixed use project on sloping multisided triangular site. Loved Revit. As you draw it, it is legible to all who look at it, including colleagues and clients. Began to go to other offices in the firm and talk up Revit. Meanwhile, many bugs in Revit, but we had someone constantly working with Revit to work them out. Then started getting feedback from other offices in the firm: "watch out! CDs in Revit will kill you!.". Noticed that as files got larger machines started choking. Large projects with multiple users in multiple offices started freezing up, rendering entire teams unproductive for hours at a time. Firm tried to respond by upgrading computers for Revit users to 64 bit megamachines. Helped, but still problems. I gave talks to client institutions and municipalities about the benefits of BIM but noticed more and more that no-one really uses BIM for BIM yet. It's usually a glorified 3-D modeling tool, but it's made to be able to embed into every component a vast array of information which can then be used over the lifetime of the building. Like all things, junk on, junk out, and that aspect of the tool is barely used as far as I can tell. Also, Revit makes terrible 2-D drawings. I originally thought the whole point of Revit was that it could make a section cut look like a section cut, but it doesn't. You have to physically go in and post-process each and every drawing if you want a legible drawing. To this day when I see a Revit plan or elevation this is so, unless someone took the time to edit or draw over the lines to make them read properly. 2008-present - started my own small form. Originally tried to convince my business partner to go with Revit. We designed a house in Revit for a competition and the process went well. But, the $5,400 price tag seemed a little steep. We decided to wait for a client who wanted Revit before getting it. In the meantime I downloaded Google Sketchup. It was so much easier and lighter than Revit that I was an instant convert. Yes, it does not exactly create plans and sections (at least my free version does not) but it is an extremely useful design tool. I love it, my clients love it. With the V-Ray plug-in it can make stunning renderings. With both Revit and Sketchup I have found it very powerful to use the model "live" in meetings to describe the project, make minor alterations on the fly, and get buy-in. Drawing in 3-D makes you deal with more issues in the design process and have fewer problems during construction. That being said, there is almost nothing clearer and more helpful than a good old beautifully drawn floor plan. Also, the best 3-D testing ground is still in the mind and through the hand, and doing little 3-D hand sketches of details and junctures is as or more powerful, and certainly quicker, than the 3-D technology. For some reason I am fascinated by the technology, but I believe that what I once heard is true: that architects take longer to draw and make less money now with CAD and computers than thy did by when drawing by hand. As with all things, all the tools can be useful and even fun, you just have to have the wisdom to use them well and in the right situations. Thanks for this "blog" or whatever you call it - I've really enjoyed it! I've written this on my iPhone, so my apologies for any typos I may have missed. Michael Patrick Patrick and Anderson Partners in Architecture Alexandria, VA ------------------------------------------- Michael H Patrick AIA Patrick and Anderson Partners in Architecture Alexandria VA -------------------------------------------


  • 14.  RE:software

    Posted 02-28-2012 06:40 PM

    I don't know where you heard that CAD work takes more time and generates less money, but whomever told you that certainly has not had real experience with CAD.

    I can  go back to the old days of hand drafting, where architects, designers, and drafters wasted untold hours inserting poche in wall and wall sections, erasing with templates and electric erasers and erasing right through the paper or mylar. Then, with ink on anything, a simple spill could destroy weeks of work.

    Also, I can remember the days of 15-20 of the architectural staff working for two years on buildings of a few hundred thousand square feet, and then spending months in the field answering questions not covered in the documents.

    Now, I am working on a 350,000 SF facility with three manufacturing levels. When complete we will have spent some  15 months on the design, with 3 people. Coordination with other disciplines would have been impossible without the 3D features and cross referencing of models.

    In both cases above, multiple buildings were involved, along with the usual challenges of fitting 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag.

    So, perhaps you need to revisit your source, and tell him he doesn't have a clue,
    -------------------------------------------
    Charles Graham AIA
    Architect
    O'Neal, Inc.
    Greenville SC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 15.  RE:software

    Posted 02-29-2012 09:52 AM
    I've read all the comments on software and found it very interesting. My question is if you are an Intern or a person that has worked in a non-design area of the field and are looking to get into design, what is the best software to have a working knowledge of walking through the door. ------------------------------------------- Sharon Etienne Assoc. AIA General Services Administration Gaithersburg MD -------------------------------------------


  • 16.  RE:software

    Posted 03-01-2012 09:48 AM
    9 jobs out of 10 will require knowledge of AutoCad with a preference for knowledge of Revit.

    David Clarke AIA
    Senior Architect
    Williams Design Group, Inc.
    Las Cruces NM



  • 17.  RE:software

    Posted 02-24-2012 11:45 AM


    -------------------------------------------
    Philip Lembo AIA
    Architect/Owner
    Philip Lembo Architect
    Clearwater FL
    -------------------------------------------
    Rich,   In answer to your comment  "Another added pressure is the fact that a very small group of well trained architects can now produce a building as big as any large firm."  implying that this can be done now with the software that is available, I would like to point out that in 1970 I worked as a project Architect on what was at that time one of the tallest concrete apartment buildings in this country and possibly the world.  I had one assistant and 3 and sometimes 4 well trained Architect draftsmen and we produced the drawings by hand on mylar in 8-9 weeks.  The project was 56 stories high & had a multi-story parking garage to the side.  The first 5 floors of the tower were commercial space and the apartment plans changed approximately 2/3 of the way up the tower where we dropped off the local elevators and picked up the express elevators which continued from that point as local elevators to the top.   Our office which had no more than 10-11 people (all registered Architects, one of whom was the spec writer and field superintendent/observer) plus the 2 principals and 2 secretarial staff.    We had this project plus another major project involving an apartment tower plus conversion of an existing warehouse into loft space apartments and commercial space on the boards at the same time.  We all could draw.  and when we drew, we did not waste our time as I do now to determine the proper command to pick from a menu of commands.   My point is, that you do not need CAD software or a large office to accomplish sizable projects.  What you need is a group of talented individuals who understand the building process and construction, are able to think three dimensionally and can work together as a team.




  • 18.  RE:software

    Posted 02-21-2012 06:35 PM

    I think your type of argument has been used for every new tchnology that has been developed.

    I find that tools that free me from the drudgery of building door and finish schedules, creating details, and plain old coordination to be more than worth the cost of the tools.

    -------------------------------------------
    Charles Graham AIA
    Architect
    O'Neal, Inc.
    Greenville SC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 19.  RE:software

    Posted 02-22-2012 03:59 AM
    I fully agree with you on that one Charles.

    -------------------------------------------
    Gordon McKenzie Assoc. AIA
    Tartan CAD Services
    Lewisville TX
    -------------------------------------------