Project Delivery

 View Only

  • 1.  Gaining Control of CD Production and CAD

    Posted 04-14-2011 10:59 AM
    This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Practice Management Member Conversations and Project Delivery .
    -------------------------------------------

    In my twenty years of practicing architecture I have watched and taken part in the CAD revolution.  From drafting in lead, then ink and plastic lead to CAD on a VAX centralized computer system with stations as large as a small car, and finally to PC based workstations.  CAD has changed the profession, some for the better, some for the worse.

    Somewhere about six or seven years ago, it took a very bad turn.

    AutoDesk, who had made great strides in improving productivity for architects and engineers to that time, turned on us.  I saw it as a strategic move on their part to exploit the fact that they had achieved a captive audience, and wanted to start peddling that access to vendors through online links and libraries, directly to the desk of the CAD drafter and architect.  If you owned their stock back then, you got well.

    When CAD became a standard practice in most firms, it was a drafting tool.  Interns and CAD drafts-people essentially copied sketches into the computer.  Many architects resisted learning CAD because they didn't want to get stuck in a position of drafting for another architect.  I did not resist because I saw it as an opportunity to learn to design on the computer.  When I became licensed, I was one of the only architects I knew who could, and it was a huge advantage for me.  By the time I was in my late 20's almost all architects I knew were CAD literate.

    CAD had reached a point where it was simple enough for architects to use it, yet effective enough that it really boosted productivity.  But AutoDesk just couldn't let well enough alone, they had to fix what wasn't broken.  They have now made it so complex that once again architects are not able to do their own drafting.  It is all in the name of "collaborating" and BIM.

    How much of the capability of CAD/BIM is really to boost productivity, and how much of it is to maintain AutoDesk market share, and provide job security for CAD drafts-people?  I think it could be much simpler, but that is just one middle aged architect's opinion.

    -------------------------------------------
    Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
    VP Project Development
    HBE Corporation
    Saint Louis MO
    -------------------------------------------



  • 2.  RE:Gaining Control of CD Production and CAD

    Posted 04-15-2011 07:09 AM
    AutoDesk has always been much like the mafioso to me. In 97 I was fortunate to enter a firm using ArchiCAD by Graphisoft. This 3D model based program was a BIM program before BIM was coined. In fact, it came out the same year AutoDesk released AutoCAD, Hungary was a Soviet controlled country at the time and they couldn't trade with us, so BIM didn't make it to the US until Gorby brought down that wall. Revit was a sad answer to ArchiCAD when it first came out and still quite inferior if you ask me. They will always be chasing ArchiCAD. In fact I see Revit as Windows and ArchiCAD as Mac OS. Ever since I started using ArchiCAD in 97, it could accommodate multiple users in a single file on both MAC and Windows. At the time, it was hard to get Windows and Mac to communicate outside ArchiCAD just to share a printer. From what I understand, Revit still doesn't support Mac, shame! The imitator has out marketed the original with a more complicated knock off using almost mafioso like tactics in shaking down Architects and scaring them into using their product, sort of like Windows. Going from AutoCAD to Revit is not the seamless process they sell it as. It's a completely different program. You might as well start over. You might as well give ArchiCAD a shot. Most have fallen for it and I keep hearing nothing but frustration. Just like a Mac, once you try ArchiCAD you never go back.

    I hear your frustration with the "next step" in representing Architecture in the virtual world. Unlearning FlatCAD and learning to take advantage of BIM is a process that many have trouble with due to the incredible inefficiency and error prone method of gluing a bunch of flat drawings together with complicated x-refs and the fact that most people think in sheets, not in terms of a whole building. The principle needs that plan now or that elevation now, so just get that one drawing done! This leads to fudging the model with 2D elements eliminating the entire purpose of using model based technology. The 3D model must be thought of as holistic process, which means the principles need to be educated to take advantage of the process and not fight it. It will change the way you bill. Most find that billing up to 50% on the front end is about right. Most of the effort is on the front end, so get paid for it. This is great when projects die midway, you got half of your money!

    I taught another firm how to use ArchiCAD for 5 years and I understand the problems with training staff to think differently. As a sole proprietor, I get far more accomplished using a model based program than my FlatCAD competition and I have pretty 3D drawings as a free by-product, not to mention the comfort of knowing my roof actually works, the 3D aspects are geometrically valid. It's amazing how often I've found Architects fudging complicated roofs in a flat elevation, only to get nailed in construction. I'll model a bathroom addition, when most would immediately go 2D. Once you get used to thinking in terms of a model, you start to think in 3D about everything. As I always advised, model everything you can see clearly at 1/4"=1'-0", beyond that 2D elements are OK. Don't draw a 2D element more than once. If you see it in multiple views, then it should be 3D. Don't draw a 3D slab and then draw the same thing in 2D for every plan showing that slab while layering the 3D element on an unseen 3D layer, only to be used for elevations and sections. BIM allows you to kill 2-3 birds with one stone. Use a sensible layer where you see that 3D slab on all the appropriate plans. Quit trying to over complicate things. The inefficiencies begin when re-representing things in 2D and 3D, which is a common obsession with the beginner. Almost everything you draw in 3D can be used in the plan views, so why redraw them? This is how the x-ref gets replaced, layer management using 3D based elements that can be represented on multiple levels. In fact the x-ref is a lousy way of achieving the same results. Waste nothing and you will see the light. The minute you start fudging elevations and sections in 2D, the process falls apart and becomes far more cumbersome. I've watched these disasters go down as my advice was ignored. It's a tool that must be used properly. A drill doesn't drive a nail very well, nor does a hammer turn a screw. Don't force it to be something it's not and that is the first mistake everyone makes.

    Finally, with a solid 3D model, I've never been wrong on the job site. Every time, and I seriously mean every single time a Contractor has called me out to the site with a problem after swearing he/she built it "just like the drawings", I can show him/her where they went wrong. It usually starts with them changing something "stupid" that I was showing that really inconvenienced a framer, so they redesigned something to make it easy that trickled into something else and before you know it the roof is off because of a wall on the first level. At first the owner thinks I'm the problem, but I know I built the building already in 3D. The geometry is valid, the construction must be off. Sure enough I always find the mistake because I didn't slap it together in 2D sheets that didn't line up, but I actually built it before it existed. If you can't ID these field mistakes, you will get blamed for the contractor's shortcomings. I know where all the problem areas are ahead of time because the 3D model is brutally honest and forces you to see the problems very early. This is a HUGE advantage over FlatCAD.

    -------------------------------------------
    Eric Rawlings AIA
    Owner
    Rawlings Design, Inc.
    Decatur GA
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:Gaining Control of CD Production and CAD

    Posted 04-15-2011 08:55 AM


    -------------------------------------------
    Michael Clark AIA
    Director Of Design
    H&H Design-Build
    New Albany IN
    -------------------------------------------
    I am having a flashback!!
    I too started working in CAD in 1982 on a Microstation system.  It was cheap at $50,000.  It was slow and painful.  By 1984 the A&E firm of 60 purchased 4 computers and armed them with Autocad.  The computers were much cheaper at $7,000 a piece, but they again were slow and painful.  I remember keeping a set of specifications near by to work on while Autocad regenerated each time I zoomed in.  Jump ahead to 1988; and we still had 4 Autocad workstations.  The thought was that every Architect who used Autocad for their projects, went over budget and eventully lost their job.  Autocad was thought to be very inefficient and costly.

    This A&E firm of 60 then made a commitment to Autocad as the tool of the future for design and by 1990 had 28 Autcad workstations.  Detail libaries had been set up, the soft ware was better, and everyone had developed the skills necessary to make Autocad profitable and the production tool of choice.  No one would ever dare think about going back to the pin bar hand drafting system.

    In 2007, I was faced with an important decision on whether to purchase Revit instead of Autocad.  I had talked with other Architects who were using Revit and heard the same story.   Revit was great for doing quick renderings for the client, but as a production tool, it was hard to learn, slow, and was not a profitable production tool.  At that time, I felt that 3d modeling was the future of design, but knew that it would take a 100% commitment to make it work. 

    I made that commitment, purchased 5 seats of Revit and have not regreted it from day one.  It started out slow and painful, but now everyone in my office that has ever used Revit would never willingly go back to straight Autocad.  Even if I chose to use only 2D linework, I would be more productive with Revit than working with straight Autocad.

    I have been using trade names like Revit and Autocad because I don't use them for BIM or for CAD.  I use them for design and drawing production.  In my mind, CAD is almost any thing digital and BIM is great for projects over $20M. 

    Revit is a complex and difficult program to learn, but once you hit that plateau where you are productive, it will really become a great tool.   There are now lots of sites where you can get tutorials, 3D models, and details.

    The best benifit of Revit is what it has done with my thinking.  I don't think in 2D anymore.  Anytime I am working in Revit, I have a 3D window open and find myself working more and more in that 3D window.

    I believe 3D modeling programs are the future of design.  I have seen more and more Architectural firms going 100% Revit.  I had my first phone call from another Architectural firm asking for my Revit file from a past project.  (I said "No, but I will send you Autocad files.")

    That's my 2 cents worth.