In the 2004 & 2005 versions. arch. desktop,although more involved, once learned, puts you way ahead, in production. It is more interrelated. Even when working in 2-D. you are really in 3-D.
Desktop is built on top of standard Autocad and although the standard Autocad menus and pull-downs don’t load by default with Desktop you can use menuload to bring in acad.mns and use Desktop as if it was Acad.
As far as which one is better… it honestly depends on what you are designing. The firm I’m with does everything custom so there is almost no repetition or kit-of-parts libraries we use. When we did several projects using Desktop it took much longer to do because of the integration of 2d & 3d. When we analyzed the project workflow we determined that Desktop could save us time in laying out plans and making subsequent changes but that plans represented a very small portion of the CD’s. Most of our CD time is spent on detail development and Desktop fell short here.
So to answer your questions:
1. I feel right now that a customized version of Autocad is better
2. Autocad is much easier to use inherently since there is less “intelligence†you are trying to apply to the drawings.
3. Again, Autocad is easier to learn on your own.
With that all said I do think that 3d parametrics are where the industry is moving and recent gains in computer speed and the lower cost of RAM are getting us closer but my experience is that the programs just don’t live up to the hype... yet.
AutoCad VS Arch. Desktop
AutoCad or Architectural Desktop
1) Which program do you think is better?
2) Which program is easier to use?
3) Which program is easier to self-teach?
Architectural desktop is just an add-on to the standard AutoCad. Ease of use is about the same for each.
http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=P1270_0_42_0_C
In the 2004 & 2005 versions. arch. desktop,although more involved, once learned, puts you way ahead, in production. It is more interrelated. Even when working in 2-D. you are really in 3-D.
you'll have to learn AutoCAD whatever you choose from above so try here.
CADTutor
the future will be parametric modelling (drawing in 3D constuction) so check out this
Revit envy
Desktop is built on top of standard Autocad and although the standard Autocad menus and pull-downs don’t load by default with Desktop you can use menuload to bring in acad.mns and use Desktop as if it was Acad.
As far as which one is better… it honestly depends on what you are designing. The firm I’m with does everything custom so there is almost no repetition or kit-of-parts libraries we use. When we did several projects using Desktop it took much longer to do because of the integration of 2d & 3d. When we analyzed the project workflow we determined that Desktop could save us time in laying out plans and making subsequent changes but that plans represented a very small portion of the CD’s. Most of our CD time is spent on detail development and Desktop fell short here.
So to answer your questions:
1. I feel right now that a customized version of Autocad is better
2. Autocad is much easier to use inherently since there is less “intelligence†you are trying to apply to the drawings.
3. Again, Autocad is easier to learn on your own.
With that all said I do think that 3d parametrics are where the industry is moving and recent gains in computer speed and the lower cost of RAM are getting us closer but my experience is that the programs just don’t live up to the hype... yet.
I would not waste my money on AutoCrap!
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.