I'm in my first year of school, and AutoCAD seems to be the software standard used everywhere in the professional arch world. The thing is I spent the last five years working a design job where I used AutoCAD everyday, so I'm pretty well set with using it. I was poking around on the web, and I noticed that students can get a free copy of ArchiCAD (for MAC!) so I got one, and I've spent a bit of time messing around with it. It feels much more intuitive to design a building in ArchiCAD, than AutoCAD, the program is just skewed towards making dwelling. What I'm wondering, is does anyone on the pro world use ArchiCAD? Would it be useful for me to spend my time learning this program, is is a total waste of effort? I'm just curious, as it seems like a well designed and useful piece of software. Thanks in advance for yout help.
I use it - I find the drawings just look significantly nicer and more like drawings on the screen.
That said, acad is used just about everywhere, though that also means every other CAD program has some means of converting into or out of it. I'm also biased as I started on v10 and used a digitizer - man, that was one ugly program.
But I like it for both its graphic qualities and its integration of 3D.
Pappageorge Haymes uses it - They have work that's a pretty good sized scale. The hardest thing with any CAD software that's not ACAD is that its not ACAD, but I've never found it to be a big problem...
It really doesn't matter, where you get hired will use whatever they use. ArchiCAD is used all over, so it ADT, Revit and a bunch of other programs.
If it will help you with your school work, go for it.
j
I've used archicad in an office for about a year, and it's completely up to par as drafting software. I think autodesk would do well to learn from the way archicad handles sets (plotmaker) vs. drawings (archicad).
it is different from autocad in a lot of areas, which makes it a blessing and a curse when you're interviewing. most firms use autocad. they don't think of drafting and autocad as seperate skills. you need to be able to show that you know autocad.
on the other hand, firms that use something else will generally look more favorably on you because you know something other than autocad (it means you'll be more flexible), even if they use something other than archicad.
sunburt is correct on that last point - I should also mention that a lot of non-autoCAD software has programmable hotkeys, so if you're used to a system, you can reprogram all of the hotkeys to something you're used to.
It doesn't hurt to learn whatever is available to you, and useful for whatever you're doing right now. On the other hand I wouldn't encourage spending a great deal of time on software. It changes so fast that if you don't use that particular software for a couple years you'll have a lot of new learning to do if you return to it.
And, there are firms out in the world using ArchiCAD, but just as many using any number of other things (VectorWorks, MicroStation, DataCad, and many others.) MicroStation brags that it has sold more stations to architects than AutoCAD has. That's mainly because a few of the very largest firms - plus the US military - use MicroStation. AutoCAD touts itself as the industry standard but I have yet to work in a firm that uses it (in 15+ years and 6 firms.) I bought the "industry standard" thing in school and learned AutoCAD, and then I never found anywhere to use it. If I were looking for a job tomorrow I don't think I'd keep it on my resume since I don't think the version I learned 15 years ago is still relevant, even if I recall any of it.
Out in the real world any firm that doesn't use AutoCAD knows that they will have to train you in whatever they do use and they will almost always be wiling to do so as long as you have a working knowledge of ANY other CAD program. On the other hand, firms that do use AutoCAD know that there are plenty of people out there who are trained in it and they'll often advertise AutoCAD as a must-have skil (though in my experience they don't really mean this - if you have more than 3 to 5 years of architecture experience and you're not computer illiterate.)
So the short answer: get a reasonable mastery of AutoCAD so it can be on your resume when you graduate. Then master whatever else is most useful to you right now, in your academic work, and don't worry about whether it will be directly related to your professional work.
Bloopox, so true. Demonstrate your ability to adopt a skill, emilyrides
You have the skill in AutoCAD, develop your skills in ArchiCAD, Vectorworks (minicad) and the rest. ArchiCAD is available on both platforms.
I learnt ArchiCAD and MiniCAD at school. I also learnt to hand draft. In my first year (95) no firm in my state used the programs. So AutoCAD was a must. All ads for work said AutoCAD or hand drafting because that is what the industry used. But no students had the skill.
By third year, the ability to use both platforms was a must.
Now firms are asking for a particular program but nearly all graduates have been exposed and are of the savvy generation to pick up a new program quickly. Firms have evolved to encompass any CAD package skill as part of your tool set.
If you can demonstrate a CAD or drafting skill, firms if they are keen enough to hire you will no doubt train you.
By showing that you could adapt to different platforms and different CAD packages
Different firms use different programs and use them differently.
How great will your resume look if you can say that yes you can use AutoCAD, ArchiCAD etc and on both of the platforms.
Employers want multiskilled workers and workers that can show they can use any tool, or have the ability to pick-up any tool and produce the work.
Think of CAD packages as the tool, think of various platforms as a tool.
You can use pencils/pens/pantones/ink to communicate. You can use a parallel line, t-square or drawing machine. And you can use a computer cad package.
as the saying goes, Jack of all trades, master of none. Go you Jackmaster!!!
Yes, the program archicad and revit etc represent is the next shift in architecture production and representation. from 2d representation to 3d object based modeling. Computers are now big enough and fast enough to virtually build buildings now instead of representational guesswork.
I have used archicad now for about two months, after completely mastering autocad, and i won't go back. Archicad is designed for architecture instead of using a program that is suited for architecture as well as designing the space shuttle.
take the time and learn archicad , it differs from most other 3d programs in that the sheet generation / organization is embedded. So while it perfectly models complex buildings it produces exact / readable 2d plans.
I've been using ArchiCAD for 18 months now and can't wait to go back to AutoCAD or Microstation. While I think 3D modeling/BIM definitely is the wave of the future, I don't feel like ArchiCAD is quite there yet. I find its limitations frustrating and don't think it (or any other BIM software) has achieved the simplicity and effieiency of ACAD or MS.
When I use it to build models from which I can then cut plans, elevations, and sections to make CD's I find that I have to spend more time trying to figure out how to "outsmart" where the program's automated features got things wrong than it would have taken just to do it in 2D line drawings. For me, an ideal BIM program would "know" more about construction than the current offerings. Until that happens, I feel it's a waste of time.
Bryan - totally agree. Ive been to BIM and back already. Been trying out revit - great program but more complex than archicad. Still most efficent doing cd's in 2d cad with people who actually understand how to draw a building, and modeling with cad models imported to max.
its funny how after all these years, building is still based on the 2d graphic image. when it comes to built work, we are still, technically, graphic designers--albiet hopefully adept ones that translate 3d or a philosophical notion to a set of 2d instructions.
i wonder adept we have become in translating our initial concepts/philosophical mindsets of a project to a built work. its funny in these days how we often begin with 3d models/sketch models, and then before the final (built "3D" environemnt), we are to translate this into a sheet of paper. like a "model" or "ikea" furniture assembly instruction booklet to actually create the environment. I wonder what gets lost, or gained, in this seemingly weird translation of ideas and notions.
it really helps to learn with other people ......major break throughs and collective team problem solving quiken the transition....otherwise it takes the endurance of lance armstrong.
Thanks so much. This thread has actually been really helpful for me. It's hard when you're in school. The academic world seems so far removed from people who are actually out there working, that I often question the value of some of the things I'm learning. Cheers.
emily this battle between bim and 2d has been going since the late 90's. You still end up drawing 75% of the set, all the details by 2d methods. Its easier to study the building yes in BIM. But as always theres good old fashioned line drawing via cad. The databasing features sound neat but Ive never gotten far enough to set up databases from the tables and if I did I wouldnt really know why. Anyone export to spreadsheats for any reasons?
I export all of my scheduals , and for projects where estimation is key, material take offs are a breeze. Evil is right 2d is key to the enlarged details. but elevation generation and wall section syncing is cool in BiM. this is a paradigm shift that will occure, some firms are on it and others are behind.... similiar to some architects never learned computer stayed with hand drafting...it both works....but i don't think anyone would learn hand drafting when the computer is king. but don't sell yourself short learn the 3d. the initial hard work pays off with fewer phonecalls as it is going up. and it depends on the project. for complex bim is good for others overkill.
The schedules are easy to learn -- to labor through them in 2D now seems lt least wholly unnecessary, and at most even masochistic.
My experience is not at all similar to EP's, in that we create far more than 25% of the set in BIM. Large, 2D details, yes, and we do lots of those. But drawing 75% of a set 2D? No.
I've been quite lucky to be working with a person whose grasp of BIM far outpaces my own. It was difficult for me to shift off of a 5-plus years reliance on 2D and endless layers, etc., into the views, constructs, sheets, etc. BIM mode. But once it takes hold, it's a helluva powerful tool.
An yet, I still have a mayline at my station that I use every day in combination with hand sketching.
Use it all, compadres. Glue a couple yogurt lids together, if that helps.
Think of CAD packages as the tool, think of various platforms as a tool.
You can use pencils/pens/pantones/ink to communicate. You can use a parallel line, t-square or drawing machine. And you can use a computer cad package.
I couldn't have said it better myself.. If you really want to be hired by anyone, showing yourself to be versatile is a big big plus. I've used AutoCad 10 years, but throughout that time I took the time to learn at least in part, other programs and platforms whether built for architecture or not. I had only used archicad once before getting hired at the job I currently hold, but because I trained myself to be able to jump from program to program I was able to pick up archicad in a manner of weeks and now I'm the guy everyone comes to with questions.
As to what you should use during school? ArchiCad is wonderfully quick and now with v10 it has a decent renderer, but, it really doesn't do free form 2D drawing well (that is to say you want to draw a simple line drawing...of course it's not really meant to) there are times and places where other software works better. Nor does it do free form 3D modeling particularly well. I've found myself using Rhino, AutoCad, Archicad and a rash of other programs to complete what I want to accomplish when it comes to the architecture we are doing, frankly this isn't a big deal, I know in my head what we want to do and it's just a matter of choosing the right software to complete the task.
evilplatypus your statement > "You still end up drawing 75% of the set, all the details by 2d methods." Is by no means an accurate assessment of what 3d modelling is all about.
Where I work we have a rule of thumb that anything above what needs to be seen at 1:20 is done in 3d - this translates into incredible documentation models which are at least 98% 3d. The only work thats 2d is annnotation, details and things like tiling and paving patterns. Details are placed directly over the 3d model so that any changes can be coordinated a lot faster.
The effectiveness of your 3d modelling really comes down to your level of commitent to 3d. I say if your in, you might as well go all the way.
emilrides it is definitely worth the time to learn a 3d package like ArchiCAD, it really is the only way a building will be drawn a few years down the track - pure 2d is simply not effective or efficient enough, i have nighmtares imagining the level of coordination involved to change set of drawings when the director walks in at the 11th hour and says: "Hmmmmm ... lets take another look at these elevations".
I also support the CAD is a "tool" philosophy - which is also why I think that your not getting the most out of your tool [ie computer] if your using it purely for 2d.
im a student and have been using autocad for years. ive also done modeling in vectorworks sketchup and 3dsmax as well. i started using archicad about 2 months ago and im not sold on it. its far too restricting for me. me and a few of my friends really try to take advantage of our school environment and push the envelope of the forms of our building and this program is just far too restricting. if your designing cookie cutter everyday buildings i think the software is great. but otherwise...ill probably be learning rhino next.
used archicad at school during the Ba and subsequenty at work. It's based on a great idea, it was parmetric in some ways waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before all the others, but it has always been flawed by trying to become a "fast" program (a la sketchup) and having to cope with construction drawings and all the other boring stuff.
It is a very good tool for a certain type of Architecture, one which is mainly orthogonal, made of repeated elements and designed to be built. I would definitely brush over it, but there are other more powerful programs to become proficient in, both in terms of what you can do with them in the provacy of your own how and how much they will teach you about 3d design in general, so that you'll be able to apply it to other programs as well.
as far as the 3dmodel-as-source-of-details-no-more-drafting aspect of the program, it surely works well for the aforementioned type of Architecture, but I doubt Hadid will ever use it.
MP3 and bigness > you is both correct about the restrictions inherent in ArchiCADs ability to model complex 3d forms - v10 has done much to combat this problem [wow ! i can do a sloping columns !!] but not really enough.
Then again - how many Hadids and Gehrys are ther in this world ?
You could do any built job by OMA or Herzog de Meuron in ArchiCAD.
Actually I am pretty sure HdeM use ArchiCAD - can anyone back this up ? I am just relying on a comment in "Content" [by OMA] where the collaborators from OMA who were sent to HdeM complain about using ArchiCAD.
my application for archicad are buildings that will be built, and dealing with what has to be done for that to happen...mainly "boring stuff" like c.d.'s, Archicad has elliminated any onforseen site visit and project call backs from builders with problems. Everything is worked out before built. more tiny problems are snuffed out before they snowball to design comprimises. As for crazy restrictions imposed by archicad. unless you use the design package ghery uses , paper models and digitizers, if there is any winkling of getting your designs out of the conceptual phase into the built realm then people have to build them using sticks and bricks....all of which can be modeled and placed using most 3d programs, don't let the perceived limitiations of programs be a limit to ones creativity, in other words don't blame the program for your lack of....you will always get what you put in.
there are limitations to archicad, printing has not been fully settled, teamwork has not, yet graphisoft (the maker) has been real receptive to all commnets and have created instant patches for problems that have arisen....if it was not for their outstanding attention to customers, i doubt i would have made it thus , if not convinced that this was the future, revit is even more difficult.
a: stuff gets built in sticks and bricks. maybe not all practices use cam and stuff like that, but there is an increasing number of practices that do.
b: you can design anything that can be built with any cad package...that might be true, but it is how fast, how much control you have, how you can out put a certain form that makes you choose a program over the other.
as for the limitations, it is true most of the time, but sometimes a program just isn't made for something, that's why you shold know the basics of as many as you can.
i agree, these things are tools to what is between your ears, someones limitaions on a program might not be limitaions for others, not all architects are created =
Caleb and bigness > this all comes back to the "CAD is tool" idea. If you can grasp the basics of one 3d application than it should not be difficult to use / switch to another 3d application.
If you take the time to learn one than it shouldn't be difficult to learn another.
absolutely, it's just that in a professional environment to become productive in a program it takes time, so I would still put top of the list the program you consider more useful
/widely used, become REALLY good in it, and then learn a bit of all the others (coming from someone who can barely print a sheet out of autocad but has used most other packages:)
This post reads like a post on some ...anyway, I use Revit, because it has always been better than ArchiCrash ( 1/2 the commands to do the same work), but Archicrash 10 is catching up quick, last time i checked. I bet soon it won't matter..but I took an Archicad class after learning Revit...and found that they are all the same..its only interface lag time jump from one to the other. In teh end, I struggle with the fact that Autodesk owns Everything ( MAYA , 3ds, etc.) now..and so, secretly I want Archicad to be competitive, even if I don't personally like it....and obviously they both suck at effective detailing.
archicad, if mastered, is efficient enough. i have used it in school and is using it in the work place, and it served me well.
but really in a designers point of view it is restricting.
if you are a type of architect that uses organic and crazy, fashionable forms (tilting twisting, distorting etc.), this program is obviously not for you.
while at school, i advice you to learn archicad, but not to restrict yourself unto it. it is better to use modelling softwares as diverse such as sketchup to rhino, JUST BROADEN YOUR choices, and be open minded. and use what you think suits your design process and graphic representation.
the age old problem with archicad's BIM was mainly its restrictive feature, ie it dwells exclusively on rectilinear forms,
but im sure graphisoft developed or purchased a modeling addon something called "maxonform", i havent tried it though...
i love to try it.
anyone here familiar with this?
Nov 24, 06 4:53 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.
Is ArchiCad worth the time to learn?
I'm in my first year of school, and AutoCAD seems to be the software standard used everywhere in the professional arch world. The thing is I spent the last five years working a design job where I used AutoCAD everyday, so I'm pretty well set with using it. I was poking around on the web, and I noticed that students can get a free copy of ArchiCAD (for MAC!) so I got one, and I've spent a bit of time messing around with it. It feels much more intuitive to design a building in ArchiCAD, than AutoCAD, the program is just skewed towards making dwelling. What I'm wondering, is does anyone on the pro world use ArchiCAD? Would it be useful for me to spend my time learning this program, is is a total waste of effort? I'm just curious, as it seems like a well designed and useful piece of software. Thanks in advance for yout help.
I used it. Then went back to ACAD.
Theresr been many a thread pro/con archicad - check the history
I use it - I find the drawings just look significantly nicer and more like drawings on the screen.
That said, acad is used just about everywhere, though that also means every other CAD program has some means of converting into or out of it. I'm also biased as I started on v10 and used a digitizer - man, that was one ugly program.
But I like it for both its graphic qualities and its integration of 3D.
Pappageorge Haymes uses it - They have work that's a pretty good sized scale. The hardest thing with any CAD software that's not ACAD is that its not ACAD, but I've never found it to be a big problem...
It really doesn't matter, where you get hired will use whatever they use. ArchiCAD is used all over, so it ADT, Revit and a bunch of other programs.
If it will help you with your school work, go for it.
j
Check these guys out:
www.fk-au.com
All done in ArchiCAD from Eureka Tower [300m residential tower] onwards.
PS : Eureka is listed under 2006 cos that was when it was finished, I'm pretty sure it's been around since 1999 or so ...
I've used archicad in an office for about a year, and it's completely up to par as drafting software. I think autodesk would do well to learn from the way archicad handles sets (plotmaker) vs. drawings (archicad).
it is different from autocad in a lot of areas, which makes it a blessing and a curse when you're interviewing. most firms use autocad. they don't think of drafting and autocad as seperate skills. you need to be able to show that you know autocad.
on the other hand, firms that use something else will generally look more favorably on you because you know something other than autocad (it means you'll be more flexible), even if they use something other than archicad.
sunburt is correct on that last point - I should also mention that a lot of non-autoCAD software has programmable hotkeys, so if you're used to a system, you can reprogram all of the hotkeys to something you're used to.
It doesn't hurt to learn whatever is available to you, and useful for whatever you're doing right now. On the other hand I wouldn't encourage spending a great deal of time on software. It changes so fast that if you don't use that particular software for a couple years you'll have a lot of new learning to do if you return to it.
And, there are firms out in the world using ArchiCAD, but just as many using any number of other things (VectorWorks, MicroStation, DataCad, and many others.) MicroStation brags that it has sold more stations to architects than AutoCAD has. That's mainly because a few of the very largest firms - plus the US military - use MicroStation. AutoCAD touts itself as the industry standard but I have yet to work in a firm that uses it (in 15+ years and 6 firms.) I bought the "industry standard" thing in school and learned AutoCAD, and then I never found anywhere to use it. If I were looking for a job tomorrow I don't think I'd keep it on my resume since I don't think the version I learned 15 years ago is still relevant, even if I recall any of it.
Out in the real world any firm that doesn't use AutoCAD knows that they will have to train you in whatever they do use and they will almost always be wiling to do so as long as you have a working knowledge of ANY other CAD program. On the other hand, firms that do use AutoCAD know that there are plenty of people out there who are trained in it and they'll often advertise AutoCAD as a must-have skil (though in my experience they don't really mean this - if you have more than 3 to 5 years of architecture experience and you're not computer illiterate.)
So the short answer: get a reasonable mastery of AutoCAD so it can be on your resume when you graduate. Then master whatever else is most useful to you right now, in your academic work, and don't worry about whether it will be directly related to your professional work.
Bloopox, so true. Demonstrate your ability to adopt a skill, emilyrides
You have the skill in AutoCAD, develop your skills in ArchiCAD, Vectorworks (minicad) and the rest. ArchiCAD is available on both platforms.
I learnt ArchiCAD and MiniCAD at school. I also learnt to hand draft. In my first year (95) no firm in my state used the programs. So AutoCAD was a must. All ads for work said AutoCAD or hand drafting because that is what the industry used. But no students had the skill.
By third year, the ability to use both platforms was a must.
Now firms are asking for a particular program but nearly all graduates have been exposed and are of the savvy generation to pick up a new program quickly. Firms have evolved to encompass any CAD package skill as part of your tool set.
If you can demonstrate a CAD or drafting skill, firms if they are keen enough to hire you will no doubt train you.
By showing that you could adapt to different platforms and different CAD packages
Different firms use different programs and use them differently.
How great will your resume look if you can say that yes you can use AutoCAD, ArchiCAD etc and on both of the platforms.
Employers want multiskilled workers and workers that can show they can use any tool, or have the ability to pick-up any tool and produce the work.
Think of CAD packages as the tool, think of various platforms as a tool.
You can use pencils/pens/pantones/ink to communicate. You can use a parallel line, t-square or drawing machine. And you can use a computer cad package.
as the saying goes, Jack of all trades, master of none. Go you Jackmaster!!!
Must learn to read and edit post before editing. oh dear
Yes, the program archicad and revit etc represent is the next shift in architecture production and representation. from 2d representation to 3d object based modeling. Computers are now big enough and fast enough to virtually build buildings now instead of representational guesswork.
I have used archicad now for about two months, after completely mastering autocad, and i won't go back. Archicad is designed for architecture instead of using a program that is suited for architecture as well as designing the space shuttle.
take the time and learn archicad , it differs from most other 3d programs in that the sheet generation / organization is embedded. So while it perfectly models complex buildings it produces exact / readable 2d plans.
I've been using ArchiCAD for 18 months now and can't wait to go back to AutoCAD or Microstation. While I think 3D modeling/BIM definitely is the wave of the future, I don't feel like ArchiCAD is quite there yet. I find its limitations frustrating and don't think it (or any other BIM software) has achieved the simplicity and effieiency of ACAD or MS.
When I use it to build models from which I can then cut plans, elevations, and sections to make CD's I find that I have to spend more time trying to figure out how to "outsmart" where the program's automated features got things wrong than it would have taken just to do it in 2D line drawings. For me, an ideal BIM program would "know" more about construction than the current offerings. Until that happens, I feel it's a waste of time.
Bryan - totally agree. Ive been to BIM and back already. Been trying out revit - great program but more complex than archicad. Still most efficent doing cd's in 2d cad with people who actually understand how to draw a building, and modeling with cad models imported to max.
its funny how after all these years, building is still based on the 2d graphic image. when it comes to built work, we are still, technically, graphic designers--albiet hopefully adept ones that translate 3d or a philosophical notion to a set of 2d instructions.
i wonder adept we have become in translating our initial concepts/philosophical mindsets of a project to a built work. its funny in these days how we often begin with 3d models/sketch models, and then before the final (built "3D" environemnt), we are to translate this into a sheet of paper. like a "model" or "ikea" furniture assembly instruction booklet to actually create the environment. I wonder what gets lost, or gained, in this seemingly weird translation of ideas and notions.
Oh, nothing. It's all very smooth.
Bryan and EP -- have either of you put out any CD's in BIM?
it really helps to learn with other people ......major break throughs and collective team problem solving quiken the transition....otherwise it takes the endurance of lance armstrong.
Thanks so much. This thread has actually been really helpful for me. It's hard when you're in school. The academic world seems so far removed from people who are actually out there working, that I often question the value of some of the things I'm learning. Cheers.
emily this battle between bim and 2d has been going since the late 90's. You still end up drawing 75% of the set, all the details by 2d methods. Its easier to study the building yes in BIM. But as always theres good old fashioned line drawing via cad. The databasing features sound neat but Ive never gotten far enough to set up databases from the tables and if I did I wouldnt really know why. Anyone export to spreadsheats for any reasons?
I export all of my scheduals , and for projects where estimation is key, material take offs are a breeze. Evil is right 2d is key to the enlarged details. but elevation generation and wall section syncing is cool in BiM. this is a paradigm shift that will occure, some firms are on it and others are behind.... similiar to some architects never learned computer stayed with hand drafting...it both works....but i don't think anyone would learn hand drafting when the computer is king. but don't sell yourself short learn the 3d. the initial hard work pays off with fewer phonecalls as it is going up. and it depends on the project. for complex bim is good for others overkill.
CalebRcihers....sounds like you have been doing this for awhile, what are the pitfalls?
The schedules are easy to learn -- to labor through them in 2D now seems lt least wholly unnecessary, and at most even masochistic.
My experience is not at all similar to EP's, in that we create far more than 25% of the set in BIM. Large, 2D details, yes, and we do lots of those. But drawing 75% of a set 2D? No.
I've been quite lucky to be working with a person whose grasp of BIM far outpaces my own. It was difficult for me to shift off of a 5-plus years reliance on 2D and endless layers, etc., into the views, constructs, sheets, etc. BIM mode. But once it takes hold, it's a helluva powerful tool.
An yet, I still have a mayline at my station that I use every day in combination with hand sketching.
Use it all, compadres. Glue a couple yogurt lids together, if that helps.
You can use pencils/pens/pantones/ink to communicate. You can use a parallel line, t-square or drawing machine. And you can use a computer cad package.
I couldn't have said it better myself.. If you really want to be hired by anyone, showing yourself to be versatile is a big big plus. I've used AutoCad 10 years, but throughout that time I took the time to learn at least in part, other programs and platforms whether built for architecture or not. I had only used archicad once before getting hired at the job I currently hold, but because I trained myself to be able to jump from program to program I was able to pick up archicad in a manner of weeks and now I'm the guy everyone comes to with questions.
As to what you should use during school? ArchiCad is wonderfully quick and now with v10 it has a decent renderer, but, it really doesn't do free form 2D drawing well (that is to say you want to draw a simple line drawing...of course it's not really meant to) there are times and places where other software works better. Nor does it do free form 3D modeling particularly well. I've found myself using Rhino, AutoCad, Archicad and a rash of other programs to complete what I want to accomplish when it comes to the architecture we are doing, frankly this isn't a big deal, I know in my head what we want to do and it's just a matter of choosing the right software to complete the task.
evilplatypus your statement > "You still end up drawing 75% of the set, all the details by 2d methods." Is by no means an accurate assessment of what 3d modelling is all about.
Where I work we have a rule of thumb that anything above what needs to be seen at 1:20 is done in 3d - this translates into incredible documentation models which are at least 98% 3d. The only work thats 2d is annnotation, details and things like tiling and paving patterns. Details are placed directly over the 3d model so that any changes can be coordinated a lot faster.
The effectiveness of your 3d modelling really comes down to your level of commitent to 3d. I say if your in, you might as well go all the way.
emilrides it is definitely worth the time to learn a 3d package like ArchiCAD, it really is the only way a building will be drawn a few years down the track - pure 2d is simply not effective or efficient enough, i have nighmtares imagining the level of coordination involved to change set of drawings when the director walks in at the 11th hour and says: "Hmmmmm ... lets take another look at these elevations".
I also support the CAD is a "tool" philosophy - which is also why I think that your not getting the most out of your tool [ie computer] if your using it purely for 2d.
im a student and have been using autocad for years. ive also done modeling in vectorworks sketchup and 3dsmax as well. i started using archicad about 2 months ago and im not sold on it. its far too restricting for me. me and a few of my friends really try to take advantage of our school environment and push the envelope of the forms of our building and this program is just far too restricting. if your designing cookie cutter everyday buildings i think the software is great. but otherwise...ill probably be learning rhino next.
used archicad at school during the Ba and subsequenty at work. It's based on a great idea, it was parmetric in some ways waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before all the others, but it has always been flawed by trying to become a "fast" program (a la sketchup) and having to cope with construction drawings and all the other boring stuff.
It is a very good tool for a certain type of Architecture, one which is mainly orthogonal, made of repeated elements and designed to be built. I would definitely brush over it, but there are other more powerful programs to become proficient in, both in terms of what you can do with them in the provacy of your own how and how much they will teach you about 3d design in general, so that you'll be able to apply it to other programs as well.
as far as the 3dmodel-as-source-of-details-no-more-drafting aspect of the program, it surely works well for the aforementioned type of Architecture, but I doubt Hadid will ever use it.
MP3 and bigness > you is both correct about the restrictions inherent in ArchiCADs ability to model complex 3d forms - v10 has done much to combat this problem [wow ! i can do a sloping columns !!] but not really enough.
Then again - how many Hadids and Gehrys are ther in this world ?
You could do any built job by OMA or Herzog de Meuron in ArchiCAD.
Actually I am pretty sure HdeM use ArchiCAD - can anyone back this up ? I am just relying on a comment in "Content" [by OMA] where the collaborators from OMA who were sent to HdeM complain about using ArchiCAD.
my application for archicad are buildings that will be built, and dealing with what has to be done for that to happen...mainly "boring stuff" like c.d.'s, Archicad has elliminated any onforseen site visit and project call backs from builders with problems. Everything is worked out before built. more tiny problems are snuffed out before they snowball to design comprimises. As for crazy restrictions imposed by archicad. unless you use the design package ghery uses , paper models and digitizers, if there is any winkling of getting your designs out of the conceptual phase into the built realm then people have to build them using sticks and bricks....all of which can be modeled and placed using most 3d programs, don't let the perceived limitiations of programs be a limit to ones creativity, in other words don't blame the program for your lack of....you will always get what you put in.
there are limitations to archicad, printing has not been fully settled, teamwork has not, yet graphisoft (the maker) has been real receptive to all commnets and have created instant patches for problems that have arisen....if it was not for their outstanding attention to customers, i doubt i would have made it thus , if not convinced that this was the future, revit is even more difficult.
caleb, it is a bit restrictive to say that
a: stuff gets built in sticks and bricks. maybe not all practices use cam and stuff like that, but there is an increasing number of practices that do.
b: you can design anything that can be built with any cad package...that might be true, but it is how fast, how much control you have, how you can out put a certain form that makes you choose a program over the other.
as for the limitations, it is true most of the time, but sometimes a program just isn't made for something, that's why you shold know the basics of as many as you can.
i agree, these things are tools to what is between your ears, someones limitaions on a program might not be limitaions for others, not all architects are created =
Caleb and bigness > this all comes back to the "CAD is tool" idea. If you can grasp the basics of one 3d application than it should not be difficult to use / switch to another 3d application.
If you take the time to learn one than it shouldn't be difficult to learn another.
absolutely, it's just that in a professional environment to become productive in a program it takes time, so I would still put top of the list the program you consider more useful
/widely used, become REALLY good in it, and then learn a bit of all the others (coming from someone who can barely print a sheet out of autocad but has used most other packages:)
This post reads like a post on some ...anyway, I use Revit, because it has always been better than ArchiCrash ( 1/2 the commands to do the same work), but Archicrash 10 is catching up quick, last time i checked. I bet soon it won't matter..but I took an Archicad class after learning Revit...and found that they are all the same..its only interface lag time jump from one to the other. In teh end, I struggle with the fact that Autodesk owns Everything ( MAYA , 3ds, etc.) now..and so, secretly I want Archicad to be competitive, even if I don't personally like it....and obviously they both suck at effective detailing.
Formfunction33 > yeah this is turning into a Mac vs PC type discussion !
ArchiCAD came before Revit ...
archicad, if mastered, is efficient enough. i have used it in school and is using it in the work place, and it served me well.
but really in a designers point of view it is restricting.
if you are a type of architect that uses organic and crazy, fashionable forms (tilting twisting, distorting etc.), this program is obviously not for you.
while at school, i advice you to learn archicad, but not to restrict yourself unto it. it is better to use modelling softwares as diverse such as sketchup to rhino, JUST BROADEN YOUR choices, and be open minded. and use what you think suits your design process and graphic representation.
the age old problem with archicad's BIM was mainly its restrictive feature, ie it dwells exclusively on rectilinear forms,
but im sure graphisoft developed or purchased a modeling addon something called "maxonform", i havent tried it though...
i love to try it.
anyone here familiar with this?
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.