i am. being a one man office and doing small projects, i draft all my drawings. i draw by pencil or acad. leave out the fat as i go along. when you draft something, you have to construct it.
i can also understand the culture who looks down on draftsman. there is a big differentiation between design dept. and drafting dept., in large corporate offices.
my first job after school was a drafting job in welton and becket. sometimes tracing the rough drawings given to me by older draftsman who wore aprons or arm protectors against graphite.
i wouldn't draft now if it wasn't my own design projects, but thanks god, i learned it way back. to younger people, i recommend it to learn how to draft.
few more points;
acad or pencil, it is the same drafting.
in your early jobs, you learn much more in drafting dept., and faster.
don't stay in drafting more than 4-5 years. because you'll get really good at it and become irreplaceble for the company.it is a necessary part of architecture but just that, 'part'.
one more;
it is important to keep par with theory and design practice, so you are not going to a new realm when you get your design projects.
"always check dimentions".
..and, the old definetion of draftsmen is a little different.
then, draftsmen meant, an architect and an artist combined in one person who could 'draw' and 'build'. specially in england. if some british film maker approaches to you in a party, and asks 'are you a draftsman?' think that, he could be your first architectural client..
Now I wasn't that good making top,side front geometric but after I had to translate some of it into matrix operations I guess I could do it better then, by hand,--- but then why do it perfect by hand when you can do it 1000 times in the same time with the computer.
Anyway if you need to do it and to lazy to do it by hand ,then I wonder if you become a draftperson doing your own things in a way never done before, just to leave the trouble doing it the tradisional way ?
hi per. for your type of work, computer drawing is a must, i think.
i am not talking about being nostalgic about hand drafting. sometimes i end up doing a little detail drawing on a wall at a jobsite. i am only talking about my own context and place of drawings in it. i am not talking about computer generated innovative stuff like yours. it is about a specific language, architects must communicate their work in, already decided specific format like a set of construction drawings and sketches. acad is great for me and i need a lot of two dimentional, flat drawings for the building department and contractors, who read buildings and designs in this format. it takes me about the same time to the set of drawings wether it is by computer or by hand. i develop the work in 3d in my mind. the trick is to put them on flat on paper and indicate heights, widths and depths in relation to building parts and installation process. i am in los angeles and deal a lot with type V buildings.
Do whatever works. People have different aptitudes. If designing or even drafting by hand gets the best result - I say go for it. There is no 'one size fits all' in our profession - and there probably never will be (thank God).
For me - I am a 'drafter' first, 'designe'r second, 'architect' third. I live and breath in AutoCAD. Couldn't live without it. I've gotten to the point of 'wanting' something and getting pretty close to what I 'want' just by sitting down and offsetting some lines. It took about 10 years to get there. Now that I am there - my hand hurts like hell! I might just have to go back to hand drafting after all - but for reasons I never imagined.
These are definitely NOT interchangeable. The computer is an amazing tool and the various softwares have increased the numbers of ways that a given project can be studied.
But the ability to draw by hand is also a must. Things can be looked at in less-structured ways. It's easier, for instance, to mix types of drawings within one sketch or change from two- to three-dimensions within the same drawing and with incredible speed. A simple hand sketch of 5-10 lines can express so much more and can be revised so quickly through either drawing-over, tracing, or reiteration, while maintaining the history of the process.
The ability to 'fudge' in hand-drafting is undervalued. It's seen as one of the primary benefits of computer drawing that it is so accurate - and I agree that this is a benefit. But there is also a benefit in the alternative - that we can illustrate our intentions through drawings that are less exact than they are communicative and direct.
Whatever program you use, there will always be a different 'language' between you and thinking about a building. The mind to hand connection in sketching and drafting is critical. Figuring out how to translate intention through the commands of a canned software will always involve some level of adaptation.
If we ever get to an either/or situation in architecture, I'm done.
And then we havn\t even mentioned isometric .
But while at the subject there are one thing to remember about 3D computer drawings the fact that you can\t "cheat".
If the roof work in a computer drawing you know it will work ,but just refere Escher and you know that the artistic aproach come with a price aswell as a win. Im'e quite sure that momatter how much good you can say about hand sketches, then you alway's need to check if it is possible, with a 3D computer drawing you know that unless it can be build it can't be drawn 3D.
Per: I agree that checking to see if things can be built as 3D models is a good way to check that the structure is probably buildable.
However: I disagree with you that one can't "cheat" in a 3D computer model. I can build any Escher drawing as a FormZ model (substitute most other 3D softwares and this is still true.) This is because most 3D software allows forms that are not possible in "real world space" - such as "surface solids" (one-sided enclosures - all skin and no inside), one-sided surfaces, connections of points in space with forms that are "flat" and yet not planar, and other such examples that are not buildable without modification in the real world even though they exist in 3D space in the world of the computer.
Your statement "with a 3D computer drawing you know that unless it can be build it can't be drawn 3D" is false. The reverse of this statement is probably true - that anything that can be built can be modeled in 3D.
Hi
Try give it another thought ; everything real also cover a 3D space.
All Escher's I seen have seen ,except the patterns that realy are interesting in their morphing from one shape into another, is 2D "cheat" ,that no way can be build ; stairs that when you follow them leave you upside down , it look real 2D untill you realise that it never can be build in real.
The Escher 2D graphics I mention are all giving the impression of a 3D world ,but one that cheat your mind --- except the mobious tape that acturly can be made 3D and in real.
I agrea that what can be build also can be displayed 3D, and the other 3D entities you mention proberly is difficult to find in the real world. Still they are quite exact defined in 3D cooerdinates and will measure any 3D calculation in a very real way, the exact 3D points is very real .
No I still must say ,that the "problem" with 2D perspective drawings is, that you can draw somthing impossible to make in real, ------ and also impossible to put into a 3D virtural world so I find the statement a very important one, one that tell the difference the limitation and the trouble with both.
There are not that many statements about 3D that define 3D oposed 2D , now you must have seen 2D projecting where a bit Escher slipped into it, a building where the roof look great but only work 2D as it must turn inside out to be build .
Per, I have to agree with Aluminate. Any of the Escher "impossible drawings" that you mention can also be produced as 3D models. In the same way that a perspective drawing can "cheat" a 3D model can do the same thing. Every point can exist in 3D space - yes - but not necessarily in the place in 3D space that it appears to be in some views...
It's actually a common assignment in 3D modeling courses to create a 3D representation of the neverending stair that you're writing about - and it isn't difficult to do. In the same way that the 2D drawing "cheats" by tweaking the perspective to allow the drawing to wrap around on itself it is similarly possible to create a model that tweaks the locations - in this case mainly the heights/elevations - of the elements to create a 3D object that produces the 2D Escher image in one or more views.
3D computer modeling allows a lot of other situations that can't exist in real space, such as multiple objects occupying the same space at the same time, lack of gravity, objects that twist into themselves, turn inside out, and more.
Escher is not easy to place but I think the most important of his works deal with his patterns , I think that the architectural drawings is like master showing the tricks , these morphing patterns when used is rather decor but a very different type of decor one that ask so much craftmanship that the "trend" didn't evolve as far as it's potential.
Still we talk about 3D points, somthing you can digitize somthing very real in a computers memmory ,somthing that mirror on the screen after a few very simple calcualations where the screen's plane are also in the calculations to show the projection of each point from stored 3D cooerdinates into how they perform on any plane you describe with 3 face points.
My point is that the neverending stairs will drive the CAD guy crazy, as when digitizing you have no logic there are no picture about the end result, when you digitized each and every point in 3D the thing will be there, -------- but there are no place to twist our perception according to how Escher make you accept two of each tree facts for each graphic statement ; you sort of accept two out of tree and end up realising he turned the world upside down in two steps .
Did any of you ever try hand a carpenter one of Eschers drawings ;))
True in 3D you can describe any of the models you refere, --- but you can also make it calculate without loosing the logic and yield a result that is very real ,and yes objects can occupy the same space but fact is that these objects exist from their description in any space --- just that they can show in the same space only mean we created a reality that is not complete one where the rules of fact is not interprented a part reality ; but the 3D points and the calculation rules work ,we can calculate how big the intersecting volume is , ofcaurse as we just made a model . Gravity also is somthing that need to be described as object property or space proberty ,but we didn't model a simulation of the real world, before all pieces and all properties are contained in our model --- aswell as we start defining the 3D space we can't determine anything before this world is complete.
Now this is far from the early Sowjet pioniere that is my main interest and been so all the time I tried to translate the drive into somthing that can reflect today, but we can't make halve worlds and as you say ,gravity are a part of it, so our pen must be able to draw that to.
like most pay related questions, it depends where you live. what your experience is, who you are drafting for.
i drafted for the department of energy when i was in my second year of school and that was the highest paying job i've had in 5 years.
i drafted after school for an architect and got paid little.
Depends on your location - here in LA average is probably from $15-$25/hr, but as salary. So maybe $30,000-$55,000 per year? I have only worked with people who were purely drafters at a larger office that did institutional work. They were all immigrants from the Phillipines, and I believe they had some sort of architectural training but presumably not degrees accredited in the states. I loved working with these guys - they really knew their stuff and were very efficient, but they tended to not want to participate in the design or really try to understand the engineering, etc. Don't know if this was because of the atmosphere in the office or personal preference. At that same firm we also sub-contracted out the 'as-built' drawings for the larger projects. This means when we started work on modernization of a school, for example, we would send the existing drawings out and have them put into cad. I imagine a lot of drafters work at that type of specialist firm.
In that larger office, I would say the drafters were probably paid less than most people except the interns. So the designers,project managers, admin etc. would have made more than that after a few years.
Most of the architectural staff drafted as well, but these guys really did a lot of the boring/routine work and setting up sheets,details, etc. At smaller firms it is generally the younger staff or interns who do most of the drafting, but they generally have a professional degree and are not planning on only doing drafting for more than a few years.
My husband also worked for a company that did trade-show displays and movie/marketing displays(a lot of laser cutting, fiberglass etc.). He and a couple other guys in the design department were more or less drafters, although they did some detailing as well. I think he made $18/hr, and that was with not much cad experience and a few years ago.
Generally I would say you can probably make decent money for the amount of education required (you wouldn't need a professional degree), but you would be limiting yourself in terms of moving up in the hierarchy of a larger office or being given more responsibility and participation in design.
if you like drafting, start from a small office where, naturally, you'll be doing other tasks based on your interest. some people are excellent talking to clients, organizing the pit, doing 3d, running around talking to subs.
you will be better off to see the beginning and continuation of drafting work into actuality in short span of time.
it is really liberating to know drafting when you go on your own and have nobody but yourself to go around.
but don't think it is a give away job in offices. if they hire you, they are expecting your focus and diligance. fuck up in cd's can cost a lot of money and time. if your boss drafter gurus like you, you'll learn a lot and if they don't, get out of there. i've seen physical fight among drafters over a fuck up. in a reputable office.
like i said before, don't stay too long. it can be a technical job that eats your creative energy while making you lazier with a semi secure job of specialty firm shopping malls and hotel details if not institutional repairs.
try to get a drafting job if you have good drafting skills w/ acad, in a structural engineers office. a jettisoned way of learning everything about construction detailing and reason.
Dec 7, 04 2:15 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Draftsmen?
Anyone here a draftsperson?
i am. being a one man office and doing small projects, i draft all my drawings. i draw by pencil or acad. leave out the fat as i go along. when you draft something, you have to construct it.
i can also understand the culture who looks down on draftsman. there is a big differentiation between design dept. and drafting dept., in large corporate offices.
my first job after school was a drafting job in welton and becket. sometimes tracing the rough drawings given to me by older draftsman who wore aprons or arm protectors against graphite.
i wouldn't draft now if it wasn't my own design projects, but thanks god, i learned it way back. to younger people, i recommend it to learn how to draft.
few more points;
acad or pencil, it is the same drafting.
in your early jobs, you learn much more in drafting dept., and faster.
don't stay in drafting more than 4-5 years. because you'll get really good at it and become irreplaceble for the company.it is a necessary part of architecture but just that, 'part'.
one more;
it is important to keep par with theory and design practice, so you are not going to a new realm when you get your design projects.
"always check dimentions".
..and, the old definetion of draftsmen is a little different.
then, draftsmen meant, an architect and an artist combined in one person who could 'draw' and 'build'. specially in england. if some british film maker approaches to you in a party, and asks 'are you a draftsman?' think that, he could be your first architectural client..
Hi
Now I wasn't that good making top,side front geometric but after I had to translate some of it into matrix operations I guess I could do it better then, by hand,--- but then why do it perfect by hand when you can do it 1000 times in the same time with the computer.
Anyway if you need to do it and to lazy to do it by hand ,then I wonder if you become a draftperson doing your own things in a way never done before, just to leave the trouble doing it the tradisional way ?
hi per. for your type of work, computer drawing is a must, i think.
i am not talking about being nostalgic about hand drafting. sometimes i end up doing a little detail drawing on a wall at a jobsite. i am only talking about my own context and place of drawings in it. i am not talking about computer generated innovative stuff like yours. it is about a specific language, architects must communicate their work in, already decided specific format like a set of construction drawings and sketches. acad is great for me and i need a lot of two dimentional, flat drawings for the building department and contractors, who read buildings and designs in this format. it takes me about the same time to the set of drawings wether it is by computer or by hand. i develop the work in 3d in my mind. the trick is to put them on flat on paper and indicate heights, widths and depths in relation to building parts and installation process. i am in los angeles and deal a lot with type V buildings.
Hi
Exactly ,my point just is that your mental perception about 3D can grow by knowing the way the computer place it on the screen. It can .
If someone doesn't mind, answering how is the pay? Is it hard to find a job doing this?
Do whatever works. People have different aptitudes. If designing or even drafting by hand gets the best result - I say go for it. There is no 'one size fits all' in our profession - and there probably never will be (thank God).
For me - I am a 'drafter' first, 'designe'r second, 'architect' third. I live and breath in AutoCAD. Couldn't live without it. I've gotten to the point of 'wanting' something and getting pretty close to what I 'want' just by sitting down and offsetting some lines. It took about 10 years to get there. Now that I am there - my hand hurts like hell! I might just have to go back to hand drafting after all - but for reasons I never imagined.
"acad or pencil, it is the same drafting."
These are definitely NOT interchangeable. The computer is an amazing tool and the various softwares have increased the numbers of ways that a given project can be studied.
But the ability to draw by hand is also a must. Things can be looked at in less-structured ways. It's easier, for instance, to mix types of drawings within one sketch or change from two- to three-dimensions within the same drawing and with incredible speed. A simple hand sketch of 5-10 lines can express so much more and can be revised so quickly through either drawing-over, tracing, or reiteration, while maintaining the history of the process.
The ability to 'fudge' in hand-drafting is undervalued. It's seen as one of the primary benefits of computer drawing that it is so accurate - and I agree that this is a benefit. But there is also a benefit in the alternative - that we can illustrate our intentions through drawings that are less exact than they are communicative and direct.
Whatever program you use, there will always be a different 'language' between you and thinking about a building. The mind to hand connection in sketching and drafting is critical. Figuring out how to translate intention through the commands of a canned software will always involve some level of adaptation.
If we ever get to an either/or situation in architecture, I'm done.
Hi
And then we havn\t even mentioned isometric .
But while at the subject there are one thing to remember about 3D computer drawings the fact that you can\t "cheat".
If the roof work in a computer drawing you know it will work ,but just refere Escher and you know that the artistic aproach come with a price aswell as a win. Im'e quite sure that momatter how much good you can say about hand sketches, then you alway's need to check if it is possible, with a 3D computer drawing you know that unless it can be build it can't be drawn 3D.
Per: I agree that checking to see if things can be built as 3D models is a good way to check that the structure is probably buildable.
However: I disagree with you that one can't "cheat" in a 3D computer model. I can build any Escher drawing as a FormZ model (substitute most other 3D softwares and this is still true.) This is because most 3D software allows forms that are not possible in "real world space" - such as "surface solids" (one-sided enclosures - all skin and no inside), one-sided surfaces, connections of points in space with forms that are "flat" and yet not planar, and other such examples that are not buildable without modification in the real world even though they exist in 3D space in the world of the computer.
Your statement "with a 3D computer drawing you know that unless it can be build it can't be drawn 3D" is false. The reverse of this statement is probably true - that anything that can be built can be modeled in 3D.
Hi
Try give it another thought ; everything real also cover a 3D space.
All Escher's I seen have seen ,except the patterns that realy are interesting in their morphing from one shape into another, is 2D "cheat" ,that no way can be build ; stairs that when you follow them leave you upside down , it look real 2D untill you realise that it never can be build in real.
The Escher 2D graphics I mention are all giving the impression of a 3D world ,but one that cheat your mind --- except the mobious tape that acturly can be made 3D and in real.
I agrea that what can be build also can be displayed 3D, and the other 3D entities you mention proberly is difficult to find in the real world. Still they are quite exact defined in 3D cooerdinates and will measure any 3D calculation in a very real way, the exact 3D points is very real .
No I still must say ,that the "problem" with 2D perspective drawings is, that you can draw somthing impossible to make in real, ------ and also impossible to put into a 3D virtural world so I find the statement a very important one, one that tell the difference the limitation and the trouble with both.
There are not that many statements about 3D that define 3D oposed 2D , now you must have seen 2D projecting where a bit Escher slipped into it, a building where the roof look great but only work 2D as it must turn inside out to be build .
Per, I have to agree with Aluminate. Any of the Escher "impossible drawings" that you mention can also be produced as 3D models. In the same way that a perspective drawing can "cheat" a 3D model can do the same thing. Every point can exist in 3D space - yes - but not necessarily in the place in 3D space that it appears to be in some views...
It's actually a common assignment in 3D modeling courses to create a 3D representation of the neverending stair that you're writing about - and it isn't difficult to do. In the same way that the 2D drawing "cheats" by tweaking the perspective to allow the drawing to wrap around on itself it is similarly possible to create a model that tweaks the locations - in this case mainly the heights/elevations - of the elements to create a 3D object that produces the 2D Escher image in one or more views.
3D computer modeling allows a lot of other situations that can't exist in real space, such as multiple objects occupying the same space at the same time, lack of gravity, objects that twist into themselves, turn inside out, and more.
Hi
Escher is not easy to place but I think the most important of his works deal with his patterns , I think that the architectural drawings is like master showing the tricks , these morphing patterns when used is rather decor but a very different type of decor one that ask so much craftmanship that the "trend" didn't evolve as far as it's potential.
Still we talk about 3D points, somthing you can digitize somthing very real in a computers memmory ,somthing that mirror on the screen after a few very simple calcualations where the screen's plane are also in the calculations to show the projection of each point from stored 3D cooerdinates into how they perform on any plane you describe with 3 face points.
My point is that the neverending stairs will drive the CAD guy crazy, as when digitizing you have no logic there are no picture about the end result, when you digitized each and every point in 3D the thing will be there, -------- but there are no place to twist our perception according to how Escher make you accept two of each tree facts for each graphic statement ; you sort of accept two out of tree and end up realising he turned the world upside down in two steps .
Did any of you ever try hand a carpenter one of Eschers drawings ;))
True in 3D you can describe any of the models you refere, --- but you can also make it calculate without loosing the logic and yield a result that is very real ,and yes objects can occupy the same space but fact is that these objects exist from their description in any space --- just that they can show in the same space only mean we created a reality that is not complete one where the rules of fact is not interprented a part reality ; but the 3D points and the calculation rules work ,we can calculate how big the intersecting volume is , ofcaurse as we just made a model . Gravity also is somthing that need to be described as object property or space proberty ,but we didn't model a simulation of the real world, before all pieces and all properties are contained in our model --- aswell as we start defining the 3D space we can't determine anything before this world is complete.
Now this is far from the early Sowjet pioniere that is my main interest and been so all the time I tried to translate the drive into somthing that can reflect today, but we can't make halve worlds and as you say ,gravity are a part of it, so our pen must be able to draw that to.
Can anyone answer my question about how much a draftsperson would make?
like most pay related questions, it depends where you live. what your experience is, who you are drafting for.
i drafted for the department of energy when i was in my second year of school and that was the highest paying job i've had in 5 years.
i drafted after school for an architect and got paid little.
Depends on your location - here in LA average is probably from $15-$25/hr, but as salary. So maybe $30,000-$55,000 per year? I have only worked with people who were purely drafters at a larger office that did institutional work. They were all immigrants from the Phillipines, and I believe they had some sort of architectural training but presumably not degrees accredited in the states. I loved working with these guys - they really knew their stuff and were very efficient, but they tended to not want to participate in the design or really try to understand the engineering, etc. Don't know if this was because of the atmosphere in the office or personal preference. At that same firm we also sub-contracted out the 'as-built' drawings for the larger projects. This means when we started work on modernization of a school, for example, we would send the existing drawings out and have them put into cad. I imagine a lot of drafters work at that type of specialist firm.
In that larger office, I would say the drafters were probably paid less than most people except the interns. So the designers,project managers, admin etc. would have made more than that after a few years.
Most of the architectural staff drafted as well, but these guys really did a lot of the boring/routine work and setting up sheets,details, etc. At smaller firms it is generally the younger staff or interns who do most of the drafting, but they generally have a professional degree and are not planning on only doing drafting for more than a few years.
My husband also worked for a company that did trade-show displays and movie/marketing displays(a lot of laser cutting, fiberglass etc.). He and a couple other guys in the design department were more or less drafters, although they did some detailing as well. I think he made $18/hr, and that was with not much cad experience and a few years ago.
Generally I would say you can probably make decent money for the amount of education required (you wouldn't need a professional degree), but you would be limiting yourself in terms of moving up in the hierarchy of a larger office or being given more responsibility and participation in design.
if you like drafting, start from a small office where, naturally, you'll be doing other tasks based on your interest. some people are excellent talking to clients, organizing the pit, doing 3d, running around talking to subs.
you will be better off to see the beginning and continuation of drafting work into actuality in short span of time.
it is really liberating to know drafting when you go on your own and have nobody but yourself to go around.
but don't think it is a give away job in offices. if they hire you, they are expecting your focus and diligance. fuck up in cd's can cost a lot of money and time. if your boss drafter gurus like you, you'll learn a lot and if they don't, get out of there. i've seen physical fight among drafters over a fuck up. in a reputable office.
like i said before, don't stay too long. it can be a technical job that eats your creative energy while making you lazier with a semi secure job of specialty firm shopping malls and hotel details if not institutional repairs.
try to get a drafting job if you have good drafting skills w/ acad, in a structural engineers office. a jettisoned way of learning everything about construction detailing and reason.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.