What is keeping architects from using application designed for architecture? Instead most architects use software designed for other fields. 3ds max (by far the most popular) together with Maya and cd4 was designed for the gaming and film industry. Catia was made for aircraft design. Rhino was initially used by boot designers, but industrial designers saw the potential in it and use I it as it can transfer data to Cad/CAM machines. Autocad is a pure 100% drafting software not necessarily meant for architecture.
Boeing, Toyota nor Pixar are using Archicad, but we on the other hand can't live with out their software. What I've heard. the only reason why architects will never use BIM application like Revit, Archicad or Microstation is because of its lack of organic modeling capabilities. Which is a good reason, but on the same token implies that most architects only build blob. Or maybe everyone is waiting for the client that wants his building build in a shape of a pineapple. Who knows
Architects do use BIM, where are you getting your information from? Microstation has extensive nurbs modelling tools and believe me you can design the craziest shapes with it. People think if it's not Catia then you can't design or build double curved surfaces with it. bah
I also have no clue why we all use autocad, because frankly I'd rather hand draft. But I like archiCAD though. I guess at some point Autodesk just took over the industry here in the same way microsoft did, and it's so rooted we can't change it now.
What to do you mean we can't change it? Just use the software that best suits your design approach or find a firm that uses the program that you want to use, you will find that their thinking of architecture will most likely coincide with yours. Does it really matter what others use? Nowadays every program can import/export everything else too , so exchanging data is not that big of a deal anymore.
On the other hand, autocad or any program where you put togehter a drawing form simple shapes and elements still feels more like the old way of drafting. You can be much looser about what each line represents unlike BIM type applications where you have to make a lot of decisions upfront.
Has any one used revit ...i have ..
it is a parametric approach to design...and i feel it is rigid in tems of use..
more ever it is easy to work through max for simple simulations as well..
you just have to use it to a point that you feel is satisfactory enough for your needs..i assume we can handle the rest...... we need not be software dependent for the entire solution..
Programs like AutoCAD acturly offer a limited but full proven set of way's to shape Organic architecture, but no one want the round rooms the curved walls and there are very very limited tools, to use this to acturly project the structures to form these wonders --- so AutoCAD are used much more rigid doing the projecting in a near "as allway's done" application.
Blocks ant attributes are much closer to the logistics that is what realy matter doing the percenteage on the build works. The tradisional spreadsheet fit smooth with the attitude where you place piece by piece and let the computer program keep the account --- but this attitude are far from the technikes we shuld expect, the once that is closer to a direct link from projected structure to manufactoring the actural building compoments.
Still it all can come together, if you use the tradisional blocks and attributes to store the number, place ,weight aso. of the individual building element generated by the software.
"Architects tend to use what they know aka closed minded"
i think that statement is a little narrowminded ...
when you own 40+ licenses of a particular platform, have trained 40+ people how to use that platform, have spent considerable resources customizing that platform and have 10-15 years of firm experience (and archives) based on that platform, there are HUGE institutional and economic issues that inhibit migration to another platform
and, don't think the major software vendors don't know that
personally, yes, i do use autocad because it's what i've always used -- it's what i'm used to using and i'm pretty good at it. and yes, it does somewhat emulate hand-drafting in that a line is a line and not a building element. if i was in a situation where i needed to learn something else, why i certainly would. but who needs all the bells and whistles of revit when you're just doing a small house and you can count the doors yourself? just a thought.
switching platforms/software for a lot of architects would be like in the old days when teachers would tie lefties' left hands behind their backs and force them to write with their right hand...
amen, digger, there is way way WAY too much emphasis on "advancement" when it comes to software (in general). in a way it's like the auto industry. if taken care of properly a car should be a reliable transportation machine for 5-10 years. but the auto industry created model years as a mechanism for the regular introduction of stylistic & technical changes which, while not necessary in most cases, were advertised as such to a gullible public.
the computer industry is and has been even worse. if a tool does what you want in a way that you want it to -- why not keep using it? granted, there are frustrations with tools that enable us to make new ones that improve upon old ones. but why should it be "closed-minded" to simply be so comfortable (and efficient!) with one tool (e.g., a particular CAD platform) that you decide not to change to another?
It is in out nature to settle with anything thrown to us. We settle with the low wages, we adapt to the horrible looking offices where work in and we use software not particularly designed for architects. And because we’ve been using these software for years and found a workflow and adjusted, it is difficult to change . A company like Toyota or Boeing is a different story. They will demand a software that suits there needs. What is a car company going to do with a pure visualization software where you can only produce pretty pictures and not components to be manufactured.
Ive used Archicad, Desktop, Ive seen micro station but not used it for any amount of serious time, and my final conclusion is straight-up acad by line drawing. Most control over the product. Archicad a close second, but clunky. Not as clunky and frustrating as desktop. And ACAD can do or be modified to do just about whatever you want it to do, and there is a global market for overlays, and compatable apps already.
I like AutoCad, it gives a sense of thinking things through while you drow it. it is maybe a little more slow in drawing doors and windows, but it makes you forget about the scale of projects and to consider the detail from the start.
and 3DSM is a COOL soft so using it it makes you a tuff guy I guess.
Is not hat complicate, the most important is to get to know wery well one or two and then it has no real difference.
I love Revit! I am actually fathering Revit's child, which I will name "Charles" if it is a boy, or "Revitalynn" if it is a girl.
I only used AutoCAD for 4 years before I discovered it, and now I don't know how I ever lived without it! The office I'm with is just starting to use Revit, and the transition has been rough (most of these guys have been 2D drafting longer than I have been alive) but all-in-all, its really handy having a model that is, in a sense, a digital version of the actual building, in everything from spatial quality to construction.
As for organic forms, they are doable in Revit, but you have to think first before you just blobulate. I've heard that there are some amazing organic form plug-ins for ArchiCAD, but I personally haven't gotten a chance to play around with ArchiCAD. I think the REAL problem people have with BIM is that you can't fudge dimensions, and say "this is about 3 inches, and this is in the neighborhood of 12 feet" and the like. Its just a different approach to design than what we are generally taught back in school.
Also, I like how Revit was designed with the "Mac OS vs Windows" generation in mind. AutoCAD has always had its roots in DOS, and as a result, has never been all that user friendly to young folks like myself, but Revit was designed in the same vein as Photoshop or Internet Explorer, to cater to people who have been trained using a more modern OS setup (things like standard icons and commands and a black-on-white drawing as opposed to a rainbow-on-black). Was that enough of a sales pitch? Sorry!
The 3 companies mentioned in this thread are looking for an advantage through increased efficiency. They also have a willingness to adopt new technology in pursuit of efficiency. The same arguments of "why change it works" were used when cad started to take over from hand drafting. " We have x invested in y," is synonymous with a lack of flexibility. Why would these companies, that have people focusing solely on economics and efficiency, abandon and pick up new technologies so fast if there was not an upside?
Acad is not much more than an electric pencil, a $7500 electric pencil.
"I know what I like," is too often "I like what I know."
I am quite oldfasion in my choice of software , I do Lisp and would expect the most flexible software to be AutoCAD and 3DMax --- if just Max had the keyboard options from AutoCAD was put together in the same program , with Lisp and other programming option it would be perfect.
I guess there are much better programs than Max for rendering but designing with CAD all you need to be able to maneage, can be done in that inviroment ----- I like AutoCAD for the rigid engineering attitude damned if I must draw a line I type "Pline" I have a cooerdinate readout and can measure one to one measures do whatever I please in zero gravity , I can design true wonders and do it so it yield the single building compoment , now I have that with AutoCAD and Max, if I didn't have these there would be free download IntelliCAD and a cheap Rhino alternative . I expect the program to offer a number of functions and calculating properties beside as much perifesials as possible what more can you ask --- well it it is directly atached a mashin that acturly make the things in details you projected , guess that would be ideal ;))
I'm interested Archinect's opinion on when and if you guys think the industry is really going to switch from AutoCAD to Revit. AutoDesk seems to be betting on it and so is the firm I work for.
I've been eating and breathing Revit for the past month. I'm starting to like a lot of things about it and see the advantages. I'm a little worried about the amount of organization needed to coordinate a project compared to CAD as well as the paradigm shift in thinking needed for you hardcore CAD junkies.
I enjoy the previous comment in this thread comparing AutoCAD to a $7,500 mechanical pencil. Its so true. Revit feels much more like architecture. It's like combining the thought process you used when creating a physical model with that needed while drafting.
Do you guys think the AutoCAD 10+ year veterans are going to be able to make the shift?
Regardless, I'm hoping that the time I'm investing in the program know will result in an extremely marketable skill set a few years from now.
graphisoft(archicad) has a plug-in or an add on, called "maxonform" that is suited for organic forms...havent tried it though...
anyway i have been an avid archicad user, im more used to it than autocad...and i would really like to try MAXONFORM..
so there, graphisoft's MAXONFORM is the answer to the blob architecture frenzy... anyone here tried the afformentioned program?
Round 16 years ago I realised that AutoCAD could only handle polygon meshes with 4 connected sides, ,that Icould make faces between two 3D lines and rotate a contour line and get a rough round object.
I then had to write my own applications where I could pick 3Dline after 3Dline as many as I needed, and have AutoCAD to generate an organic formed polymesh from these defination lines. ---- Now that model _anything_.
If I import one of these meshes into 3DMAX I can tread it as any other Solid -- I can cut a hole in it subtract a real Solid if it is double I can even generate a 3D-H framework from where crossed sections cut the model. Now I talk about 16 year old applications that I could even use to unfold the surfaces or unfold the strings ,now how much realy happened in these 16 years?
I'm not sure if autocad will disappear. Like I said before, autocad is a multipurpose drafting software not specifically for architecture. However, most disciplines have moved to their own tailored made software. Mechanical engineers moved from autocad (mechanical desktop) to inventor, Civil engineers have their own Autodesk Civil Design and Autodesk Civil 3d, urban planner can make use of autodesk map, and map 3d and land desktop. Big structural engineering companies use microstation, but those who are using autodesk, while eventually move to revit structure. Architects are always the last to switch to new technology. So they are probably the biggest autocad users at the moment. As long as they keep using autocad, autocad while not disappear. So having knowledge of autocad is still valuable when applying for a job. However we managed to make more profit due to revit, have happier clients due to design medications that can be done on the fly up until the bids, so I don’t mind if architects keep using autocad if that means that we as a firm have the cutting edge.
Perhaps we've been adapters, because there's no money in architecture. 3d Modeler make more money in Hollywood and follow PIXAR's needs; drafting platforms make more money from engineers and follow their needs. Now that operational BIM software and PM software is comming online, I think threads like this might become more uncommon.
Boeing, Toyota nor Pixar use Archicad
What is keeping architects from using application designed for architecture? Instead most architects use software designed for other fields. 3ds max (by far the most popular) together with Maya and cd4 was designed for the gaming and film industry. Catia was made for aircraft design. Rhino was initially used by boot designers, but industrial designers saw the potential in it and use I it as it can transfer data to Cad/CAM machines. Autocad is a pure 100% drafting software not necessarily meant for architecture.
Boeing, Toyota nor Pixar are using Archicad, but we on the other hand can't live with out their software. What I've heard. the only reason why architects will never use BIM application like Revit, Archicad or Microstation is because of its lack of organic modeling capabilities. Which is a good reason, but on the same token implies that most architects only build blob. Or maybe everyone is waiting for the client that wants his building build in a shape of a pineapple. Who knows
Architects do use BIM, where are you getting your information from? Microstation has extensive nurbs modelling tools and believe me you can design the craziest shapes with it. People think if it's not Catia then you can't design or build double curved surfaces with it. bah
I also have no clue why we all use autocad, because frankly I'd rather hand draft. But I like archiCAD though. I guess at some point Autodesk just took over the industry here in the same way microsoft did, and it's so rooted we can't change it now.
What to do you mean we can't change it? Just use the software that best suits your design approach or find a firm that uses the program that you want to use, you will find that their thinking of architecture will most likely coincide with yours. Does it really matter what others use? Nowadays every program can import/export everything else too , so exchanging data is not that big of a deal anymore.
On the other hand, autocad or any program where you put togehter a drawing form simple shapes and elements still feels more like the old way of drafting. You can be much looser about what each line represents unlike BIM type applications where you have to make a lot of decisions upfront.
Has any one used revit ...i have ..
it is a parametric approach to design...and i feel it is rigid in tems of use..
more ever it is easy to work through max for simple simulations as well..
you just have to use it to a point that you feel is satisfactory enough for your needs..i assume we can handle the rest...... we need not be software dependent for the entire solution..
and hang on there will be plenty more ..in terms of new technology .....and the old ones will be obsolete..!!
Architects tend to use what they know aka closed minded. Most are unwilling or unable to use other software. Cost is also a factor.
Hi
Programs like AutoCAD acturly offer a limited but full proven set of way's to shape Organic architecture, but no one want the round rooms the curved walls and there are very very limited tools, to use this to acturly project the structures to form these wonders --- so AutoCAD are used much more rigid doing the projecting in a near "as allway's done" application.
Blocks ant attributes are much closer to the logistics that is what realy matter doing the percenteage on the build works. The tradisional spreadsheet fit smooth with the attitude where you place piece by piece and let the computer program keep the account --- but this attitude are far from the technikes we shuld expect, the once that is closer to a direct link from projected structure to manufactoring the actural building compoments.
Still it all can come together, if you use the tradisional blocks and attributes to store the number, place ,weight aso. of the individual building element generated by the software.
"Architects tend to use what they know aka closed minded"
i think that statement is a little narrowminded ...
when you own 40+ licenses of a particular platform, have trained 40+ people how to use that platform, have spent considerable resources customizing that platform and have 10-15 years of firm experience (and archives) based on that platform, there are HUGE institutional and economic issues that inhibit migration to another platform
and, don't think the major software vendors don't know that
personally, yes, i do use autocad because it's what i've always used -- it's what i'm used to using and i'm pretty good at it. and yes, it does somewhat emulate hand-drafting in that a line is a line and not a building element. if i was in a situation where i needed to learn something else, why i certainly would. but who needs all the bells and whistles of revit when you're just doing a small house and you can count the doors yourself? just a thought.
inertia and disinterest are more than enough to keep ac on top.
switching platforms/software for a lot of architects would be like in the old days when teachers would tie lefties' left hands behind their backs and force them to write with their right hand...
amen, digger, there is way way WAY too much emphasis on "advancement" when it comes to software (in general). in a way it's like the auto industry. if taken care of properly a car should be a reliable transportation machine for 5-10 years. but the auto industry created model years as a mechanism for the regular introduction of stylistic & technical changes which, while not necessary in most cases, were advertised as such to a gullible public.
the computer industry is and has been even worse. if a tool does what you want in a way that you want it to -- why not keep using it? granted, there are frustrations with tools that enable us to make new ones that improve upon old ones. but why should it be "closed-minded" to simply be so comfortable (and efficient!) with one tool (e.g., a particular CAD platform) that you decide not to change to another?
It is in out nature to settle with anything thrown to us. We settle with the low wages, we adapt to the horrible looking offices where work in and we use software not particularly designed for architects. And because we’ve been using these software for years and found a workflow and adjusted, it is difficult to change . A company like Toyota or Boeing is a different story. They will demand a software that suits there needs. What is a car company going to do with a pure visualization software where you can only produce pretty pictures and not components to be manufactured.
We use Revit at the office just because it makes sense. In the real world you are not going to deal with colored line work either, but components that make a building. Its sounds a bit cliché but we spend most of our time designing and not drafting. Changes and coordination, scheduling is done in a zipp and off course the massive profit we make because of the efficiency. But, like everyone else, we were very comfortable with acad. If you saw us drafting you swore we were typing a novel. So switching was not something we wanted but had to. We used to work in 2d and for presentation make a 3d model. Now we work in 3d and the model is also the cd’s. But I must agree with some of the posts here. If you feel comfortable with acad and have no need to change like we did, stick to the software. There are architects out there yet drafting by hand and never bother to switch to acad. However, If you were a freshman student, I would advice you to learn autocad to get a job and use BIM to do you school projects in. Don’t spend your time drafting, but spend it designing.
Ive used Archicad, Desktop, Ive seen micro station but not used it for any amount of serious time, and my final conclusion is straight-up acad by line drawing. Most control over the product. Archicad a close second, but clunky. Not as clunky and frustrating as desktop. And ACAD can do or be modified to do just about whatever you want it to do, and there is a global market for overlays, and compatable apps already.
Just my vote.
I like AutoCad, it gives a sense of thinking things through while you drow it. it is maybe a little more slow in drawing doors and windows, but it makes you forget about the scale of projects and to consider the detail from the start.
and 3DSM is a COOL soft so using it it makes you a tuff guy I guess.
Is not hat complicate, the most important is to get to know wery well one or two and then it has no real difference.
I love Revit! I am actually fathering Revit's child, which I will name "Charles" if it is a boy, or "Revitalynn" if it is a girl.
I only used AutoCAD for 4 years before I discovered it, and now I don't know how I ever lived without it! The office I'm with is just starting to use Revit, and the transition has been rough (most of these guys have been 2D drafting longer than I have been alive) but all-in-all, its really handy having a model that is, in a sense, a digital version of the actual building, in everything from spatial quality to construction.
As for organic forms, they are doable in Revit, but you have to think first before you just blobulate. I've heard that there are some amazing organic form plug-ins for ArchiCAD, but I personally haven't gotten a chance to play around with ArchiCAD. I think the REAL problem people have with BIM is that you can't fudge dimensions, and say "this is about 3 inches, and this is in the neighborhood of 12 feet" and the like. Its just a different approach to design than what we are generally taught back in school.
Also, I like how Revit was designed with the "Mac OS vs Windows" generation in mind. AutoCAD has always had its roots in DOS, and as a result, has never been all that user friendly to young folks like myself, but Revit was designed in the same vein as Photoshop or Internet Explorer, to cater to people who have been trained using a more modern OS setup (things like standard icons and commands and a black-on-white drawing as opposed to a rainbow-on-black). Was that enough of a sales pitch? Sorry!
Revitalynn" if it is a girl. sounds a bit like a well known stimulant for the treatment of hyper ADT (not the Autodesk program).
The 3 companies mentioned in this thread are looking for an advantage through increased efficiency. They also have a willingness to adopt new technology in pursuit of efficiency. The same arguments of "why change it works" were used when cad started to take over from hand drafting. " We have x invested in y," is synonymous with a lack of flexibility. Why would these companies, that have people focusing solely on economics and efficiency, abandon and pick up new technologies so fast if there was not an upside?
Acad is not much more than an electric pencil, a $7500 electric pencil.
"I know what I like," is too often "I like what I know."
Hi
I am quite oldfasion in my choice of software , I do Lisp and would expect the most flexible software to be AutoCAD and 3DMax --- if just Max had the keyboard options from AutoCAD was put together in the same program , with Lisp and other programming option it would be perfect.
I guess there are much better programs than Max for rendering but designing with CAD all you need to be able to maneage, can be done in that inviroment ----- I like AutoCAD for the rigid engineering attitude damned if I must draw a line I type "Pline" I have a cooerdinate readout and can measure one to one measures do whatever I please in zero gravity , I can design true wonders and do it so it yield the single building compoment , now I have that with AutoCAD and Max, if I didn't have these there would be free download IntelliCAD and a cheap Rhino alternative . I expect the program to offer a number of functions and calculating properties beside as much perifesials as possible what more can you ask --- well it it is directly atached a mashin that acturly make the things in details you projected , guess that would be ideal ;))
I'm interested Archinect's opinion on when and if you guys think the industry is really going to switch from AutoCAD to Revit. AutoDesk seems to be betting on it and so is the firm I work for.
I've been eating and breathing Revit for the past month. I'm starting to like a lot of things about it and see the advantages. I'm a little worried about the amount of organization needed to coordinate a project compared to CAD as well as the paradigm shift in thinking needed for you hardcore CAD junkies.
I enjoy the previous comment in this thread comparing AutoCAD to a $7,500 mechanical pencil. Its so true. Revit feels much more like architecture. It's like combining the thought process you used when creating a physical model with that needed while drafting.
Do you guys think the AutoCAD 10+ year veterans are going to be able to make the shift?
Regardless, I'm hoping that the time I'm investing in the program know will result in an extremely marketable skill set a few years from now.
What do you guys think?
graphisoft(archicad) has a plug-in or an add on, called "maxonform" that is suited for organic forms...havent tried it though...
anyway i have been an avid archicad user, im more used to it than autocad...and i would really like to try MAXONFORM..
so there, graphisoft's MAXONFORM is the answer to the blob architecture frenzy... anyone here tried the afformentioned program?
http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/maxonform/
check out this links.
Hi
Round 16 years ago I realised that AutoCAD could only handle polygon meshes with 4 connected sides, ,that Icould make faces between two 3D lines and rotate a contour line and get a rough round object.
I then had to write my own applications where I could pick 3Dline after 3Dline as many as I needed, and have AutoCAD to generate an organic formed polymesh from these defination lines. ---- Now that model _anything_.
If I import one of these meshes into 3DMAX I can tread it as any other Solid -- I can cut a hole in it subtract a real Solid if it is double I can even generate a 3D-H framework from where crossed sections cut the model. Now I talk about 16 year old applications that I could even use to unfold the surfaces or unfold the strings ,now how much realy happened in these 16 years?
-------- I know I became a dinusaur.
I'm not sure if autocad will disappear. Like I said before, autocad is a multipurpose drafting software not specifically for architecture. However, most disciplines have moved to their own tailored made software. Mechanical engineers moved from autocad (mechanical desktop) to inventor, Civil engineers have their own Autodesk Civil Design and Autodesk Civil 3d, urban planner can make use of autodesk map, and map 3d and land desktop. Big structural engineering companies use microstation, but those who are using autodesk, while eventually move to revit structure. Architects are always the last to switch to new technology. So they are probably the biggest autocad users at the moment. As long as they keep using autocad, autocad while not disappear. So having knowledge of autocad is still valuable when applying for a job. However we managed to make more profit due to revit, have happier clients due to design medications that can be done on the fly up until the bids, so I don’t mind if architects keep using autocad if that means that we as a firm have the cutting edge.
autocad blows
Perhaps we've been adapters, because there's no money in architecture. 3d Modeler make more money in Hollywood and follow PIXAR's needs; drafting platforms make more money from engineers and follow their needs. Now that operational BIM software and PM software is comming online, I think threads like this might become more uncommon.
1. A good BIM/PM article on Architects Newspaper
2. An article about how BIM still has a ways to go
3. Good Discussion about the two on my blog
BTW, everytime someone has replied "[Software name here] blows," I've agreed. There's a lot of room for improvement out there.
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.