Certainly I became interested in architecture, and apparently it seems like AutoCad is one of the most-used software.
I was just wondering if it's true because I'd like to learn it as early as possible.
mightyaa
Feb 12, 19 10:03 am
Most I know are on Revit now... Autocad is somewhat dying in the field of architecture.
gibbost
Feb 12, 19 10:56 am
Autocad will not die. Nor should it--no matter how hard the interns decry its existence. There is a time and place for all software--including an HB pencil and sketchbook. It is perhaps true that senior level folks have a reluctance to accept Revit, but the same ambivalence exists at the other end of the spectrum. For me, down and dirty drafting will always be more efficient in Autocad--especially for small projects and one-offs.
Non Sequitur
Feb 12, 19 10:58 am
There is never a time where a HB pencil will do... It's 6B or die!
mightyaa
Feb 12, 19 12:49 pm
gib, don't get me wrong... I still use Autocad and am old; I also used to defend it. It has it's place; like I primarily do details. But I've worked with folks who know Revit extremely well. It is far superior when doing ground up if you know the software. I am not that guy, but have seen the light. If you are starting out, I see no reason to spend the time learning Autocad when you could be learning Revit...
curtkram
Feb 12, 19 11:03 pm
i would die before i gave up HB lead.
Non Sequitur
Feb 12, 19 10:16 am
MsPaint is still the preferred software in most offices.
mightyaa
Feb 12, 19 12:53 pm
Not kidding; I've used bluebeam and image clips of scanned hand sketches and rough sketchup models to put together a full cd drawing set. Didn't touch Autodesk once on that job. Basically used the good ole stickyback drafting trick using modern media/tools to bum rush out a quick project...
senjohnblutarsky
Feb 12, 19 10:23 am
Autocad is far from dying. It's still used in my office. That's projects ranging in budget from 12,000 to 100,000,000. Bigger projects get the revit treatment. But small projects are, quite often, in autocad.
Civil will still be using Civil 3d or similar. So, you're going to see some sort of CAD interaction, even if you're using only BIM software.
randomised
Feb 12, 19 10:40 am
Most architects aren't even good at architecture ;)
curtkram
Feb 12, 19 11:04 pm
those use sketchup
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 10:46 am
Autocad should be dying, but there is a reluctance to upgrade. I was at a conference for a major food chain. They were showing off their standardized building and they had their CAD superhero there. He was so excited about dynamic blocks. I felt like I was in a time warp and it was 1990 again. Especially when he could not get the leaders for the block to work right.
gibbost
Feb 12, 19 10:59 am
There is a whole corner of the internet dedicated to analog recording (over digital). The warmth and nuance that vinyl records have cannot be matched by 1's and 0's. To suggest that older technologies simply have no place in modern society is shortsighted at best. Dynamic blocks in autocad are--in fact--pretty sweet and oftentimes perform better in a drawing than any fancy Revit family.
Non Sequitur
Feb 12, 19 11:01 am
Gib, that's only because you've not seen properly designed BIM families.
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 11:04 am
^^^^this right here.
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 11:07 am
Let me tell you that I have taken this very popular food chain's standardized autocad drawings and Revitized them into the best damn drawings set they have every seen. Get lots of compliments from all the contractors bidding my jobs.
senjohnblutarsky
Feb 12, 19 11:19 am
Well, that's cool and all, but the effort it takes to produce those awesome drawings in REVIT often is more than is necessary relative to the scale of the project. There are just going to be times when CAD is faster. Shit, just from an opening files standpoint, I can be into a file, edit it, and print before I can even open a REVIT file. Both have their merits. REVIT has yet to include a text editor that wasn't abysmal. To say that one or the other should be dying is foolish. They each have their place.
gibbost
Feb 12, 19 11:25 am
Hip7, that's encouraging to hear. My single biggest complaint of Revit projects is the lack of lineweights, depth, and overall composition of drawings on the sheet. Everything always seems static and sterile. As an architect, I've always struggled with the notion that the drawings are really are only true medium. The contractor and fabricators actually build everything. I'm glad to hear that some folks still take pride in the quality of the drawings and the clarity of detail within them. Until just recently, it seemed that the young people in past offices were so concerned about getting the 3d model to 'look cool' that the 2d drawings on the sheet suffered . . .
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 11:45 am
the time and effort is way less than it was to create in autocad. I am laughing all the way to the bank.
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 11:47 am
Gib, lack of lineweights? Again please don't let your lack of knowledge of a program be the fault of the program.
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 11:48 am
And thanks for thinking I am young :) Im actually over 40 and quite cranky for it :P
Non Sequitur
Feb 12, 19 11:57 am
Gib, graphics can easily be controlled by filters. You just need to talk to people who know their shit instead of juniors with 9/10 listed on their CV software skills graph.
randomised
Feb 12, 19 1:40 pm
Who cares about lineweights, just send them the ifc model ;)
Gloominati
Feb 12, 19 1:57 pm
Almostship7: Do you ever have any projects for which you don't get tons of compliments from the contractors bidding the job? I ask this sincerely, because it's my impression that it's standard contractor operating procedure to tell every architect that their set is the best set ever (and to allude to how bad everybody else's drawings and specs are). I don't think it matters what software is involved, or if there are any line weights at all - I think I could draw in orange crayon on a window shade, and if that was the bid set then all the bidders would tell me it's the best ever.
Flatfish
Feb 12, 19 2:12 pm
^ Agree. Every bid set is the best bid set in the world, according to every bidder - until they get the job and it's time to change their tune so they can milk it for change orders. As for AutoCAD: I haven't seen it in the wild in close to a decade, but I'm sure it won't go totally extinct - and there are people still fixing typewriters, and embroidering samplers, and making barrels. The projects I work on are mostly large public and university things, for which full Revit from architect and all consultants is a contract requirement - but the nearby reprographics place says some local architects still do all their drawings by hand, so... it takes all kinds?
Non Sequitur
Feb 12, 19 2:19 pm
^we constantly get told our drawings are horseshit (in those exact words)... then, depending on which team (we have segregated teams in the office with little cross-contamination) did the work, they are either correct or incorrect. I have had nothing but legit compliments on my BIM stuff, but that's because I'm a one-person team.
Steeplechase
Feb 12, 19 12:31 pm
My office is all Revit. Even small projects use Revit. I honestly don’t understand this issue of too much being required outside of just not having good templates.
Almosthip7
Feb 12, 19 1:42 pm
Americans don't like change.
Hows the metric system working for you guys?
Now they have to learn a new program too............
Gloominati
Feb 12, 19 1:53 pm
I've gone through a 20+ year career with very few encounters with AutoCAD outside of architecture school. Early on the firms I worked in used MicroStation, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks... These included some very large firms and some smaller ones. When I was interviewing around 2009 I encountered only firms using Revit exclusively, and that's been my norm since then.
The last time I had to do anything in AutoCAD was around 2012 - in a firm that was using Revit, but we were working on the resurrection of a very old, very small project and thought it would be easier not to convert it. I remembered enough to muddle through.
I still have a functioning old standalone license of AutoCAD, just in case, but really I don't imagine it's any more likely I'll ever open it again than that I'll ever open Quark, or ArtLantis, or...
thisisnotmyname
Feb 12, 19 2:54 pm
In my town, Revit is prevalent, but the quality of architectural drawings has declined quite a bit versus older methods. The BIM skill level in the local workforce is very low. The only people around here who seem to be able to make a good set of drawings with Revit are the big firms that have dedicated BIM managers.
thatsthat
Feb 12, 19 3:58 pm
We are a 50/50 office. Some clients request cad over Revit or vice versa, but typically it depends on what type of project it is and what the fee is like. If the scope is small, then cad it is.
Seth Bouman
Feb 12, 19 10:49 pm
kyungjujo,
I would definitely recommend getting some familiarity as soon as you can, as you mentioned. Whether you go on to use Revit or other software in the future it is still and will continue to be a great tool for quick and precise 2D designs.
I personally use some combination of AutoCAD and hand sketching or AutoCad and Photoshop or SketchUp on a nearly daily basis. Everything from quick conceptual vignettes to full sets of permit drawings.
G4tor
Feb 13, 19 3:37 pm
I would say that it really depends on the firm that you want to work at. Broadly speaking, if you want to be more marketable then you should be proficient at AutoCAD (as with any other software) but is it necessary to have? No. AutoCAD is slowly being phased out but I also don't see it dying.
Why? A lot of consultants, apart from architects, still use AutoCAD and sometimes, it's just easier to communicate/transfer the same file format instead of going cross-platform. Additionally, Revit carries with it a heavy price tag and smaller firms might not think it profitable to get a firm license AND to train up the employees.
There's also the debate behind architect vs his tools (as others have mentioned). Different circumstances call for different tools and ultimately, it comes down to the architect to pick his software wisely in order to efficiently perform his task.
Certainly I became interested in architecture, and apparently it seems like AutoCad is one of the most-used software.
I was just wondering if it's true because I'd like to learn it as early as possible.
Most I know are on Revit now... Autocad is somewhat dying in the field of architecture.
Autocad will not die. Nor should it--no matter how hard the interns decry its existence. There is a time and place for all software--including an HB pencil and sketchbook. It is perhaps true that senior level folks have a reluctance to accept Revit, but the same ambivalence exists at the other end of the spectrum. For me, down and dirty drafting will always be more efficient in Autocad--especially for small projects and one-offs.
There is never a time where a HB pencil will do... It's 6B or die!
gib, don't get me wrong... I still use Autocad and am old; I also used to defend it. It has it's place; like I primarily do details. But I've worked with folks who know Revit extremely well. It is far superior when doing ground up if you know the software. I am not that guy, but have seen the light. If you are starting out, I see no reason to spend the time learning Autocad when you could be learning Revit...
i would die before i gave up HB lead.
MsPaint is still the preferred software in most offices.
Not kidding; I've used bluebeam and image clips of scanned hand sketches and rough sketchup models to put together a full cd drawing set. Didn't touch Autodesk once on that job. Basically used the good ole stickyback drafting trick using modern media/tools to bum rush out a quick project...
Autocad is far from dying. It's still used in my office. That's projects ranging in budget from 12,000 to 100,000,000. Bigger projects get the revit treatment. But small projects are, quite often, in autocad.
Civil will still be using Civil 3d or similar. So, you're going to see some sort of CAD interaction, even if you're using only BIM software.
Most architects aren't even good at architecture ;)
those use sketchup
Autocad should be dying, but there is a reluctance to upgrade. I was at a conference for a major food chain. They were showing off their standardized building and they had their CAD superhero there. He was so excited about dynamic blocks. I felt like I was in a time warp and it was 1990 again. Especially when he could not get the leaders for the block to work right.
There is a whole corner of the internet dedicated to analog recording (over digital). The warmth and nuance that vinyl records have cannot be matched by 1's and 0's. To suggest that older technologies simply have no place in modern society is shortsighted at best. Dynamic blocks in autocad are--in fact--pretty sweet and oftentimes perform better in a drawing than any fancy Revit family.
Gib, that's only because you've not seen properly designed BIM families.
^^^^this right here.
Let me tell you that I have taken this very popular food chain's standardized autocad drawings and Revitized them into the best damn drawings set they have every seen. Get lots of compliments from all the contractors bidding my jobs.
Well, that's cool and all, but the effort it takes to produce those awesome drawings in REVIT often is more than is necessary relative to the scale of the project. There are just going to be times when CAD is faster. Shit, just from an opening files standpoint, I can be into a file, edit it, and print before I can even open a REVIT file. Both have their merits. REVIT has yet to include a text editor that wasn't abysmal. To say that one or the other should be dying is foolish. They each have their place.
Hip7, that's encouraging to hear. My single biggest complaint of Revit projects is the lack of lineweights, depth, and overall composition of drawings on the sheet. Everything always seems static and sterile. As an architect, I've always struggled with the notion that the drawings are really are only true medium. The contractor and fabricators actually build everything. I'm glad to hear that some folks still take pride in the quality of the drawings and the clarity of detail within them. Until just recently, it seemed that the young people in past offices were so concerned about getting the 3d model to 'look cool' that the 2d drawings on the sheet suffered . . .
the time and effort is way less than it was to create in autocad. I am laughing all the way to the bank.
Gib, lack of lineweights? Again please don't let your lack of knowledge of a program be the fault of the program.
And thanks for thinking I am young :) Im actually over 40 and quite cranky for it :P
Gib, graphics can easily be controlled by filters. You just need to talk to people who know their shit instead of juniors with 9/10 listed on their CV software skills graph.
Who cares about lineweights, just send them the ifc model ;)
Almostship7: Do you ever have any projects for which you don't get tons of compliments from the contractors bidding the job? I ask this sincerely, because it's my impression that it's standard contractor operating procedure to tell every architect that their set is the best set ever (and to allude to how bad everybody else's drawings and specs are). I don't think it matters what software is involved, or if there are any line weights at all - I think I could draw in orange crayon on a window shade, and if that was the bid set then all the bidders would tell me it's the best ever.
^ Agree. Every bid set is the best bid set in the world, according to every bidder - until they get the job and it's time to change their tune so they can milk it for change orders. As for AutoCAD: I haven't seen it in the wild in close to a decade, but I'm sure it won't go totally extinct - and there are people still fixing typewriters, and embroidering samplers, and making barrels. The projects I work on are mostly large public and university things, for which full Revit from architect and all consultants is a contract requirement - but the nearby reprographics place says some local architects still do all their drawings by hand, so... it takes all kinds?
^we constantly get told our drawings are horseshit (in those exact words)... then, depending on which team (we have segregated teams in the office with little cross-contamination) did the work, they are either correct or incorrect. I have had nothing but legit compliments on my BIM stuff, but that's because I'm a one-person team.
My office is all Revit. Even small projects use Revit. I honestly don’t understand this issue of too much being required outside of just not having good templates.
Americans don't like change.
Hows the metric system working for you guys?
Now they have to learn a new program too............
I've gone through a 20+ year career with very few encounters with AutoCAD outside of architecture school. Early on the firms I worked in used MicroStation, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks... These included some very large firms and some smaller ones. When I was interviewing around 2009 I encountered only firms using Revit exclusively, and that's been my norm since then.
The last time I had to do anything in AutoCAD was around 2012 - in a firm that was using Revit, but we were working on the resurrection of a very old, very small project and thought it would be easier not to convert it. I remembered enough to muddle through.
I still have a functioning old standalone license of AutoCAD, just in case, but really I don't imagine it's any more likely I'll ever open it again than that I'll ever open Quark, or ArtLantis, or...
In my town, Revit is prevalent, but the quality of architectural drawings has declined quite a bit versus older methods. The BIM skill level in the local workforce is very low. The only people around here who seem to be able to make a good set of drawings with Revit are the big firms that have dedicated BIM managers.
We are a 50/50 office. Some clients request cad over Revit or vice versa, but typically it depends on what type of project it is and what the fee is like. If the scope is small, then cad it is.
kyungjujo,
I would definitely recommend getting some familiarity as soon as you can, as you mentioned. Whether you go on to use Revit or other software in the future it is still and will continue to be a great tool for quick and precise 2D designs.
I personally use some combination of AutoCAD and hand sketching or AutoCad and Photoshop or SketchUp on a nearly daily basis. Everything from quick conceptual vignettes to full sets of permit drawings.
I would say that it really depends on the firm that you want to work at. Broadly speaking, if you want to be more marketable then you should be proficient at AutoCAD (as with any other software) but is it necessary to have? No. AutoCAD is slowly being phased out but I also don't see it dying.
Why? A lot of consultants, apart from architects, still use AutoCAD and sometimes, it's just easier to communicate/transfer the same file format instead of going cross-platform. Additionally, Revit carries with it a heavy price tag and smaller firms might not think it profitable to get a firm license AND to train up the employees.
There's also the debate behind architect vs his tools (as others have mentioned). Different circumstances call for different tools and ultimately, it comes down to the architect to pick his software wisely in order to efficiently perform his task.