why AutoCAD??

I haven't heard anyone mention this part yet: If an arch company decides to use something different from autocad, how does digital format compatability issues with consultants work out?

with out problem as it is compatible and reads and writes so many formats they don't fit the pull down menu

if you want to stay in dwg you can just as with progecad microstation et al I'm sure cadd technicians know the drill already with the .dwg format being a moving target having purposeful incompatibility issues as the other people sharing the format cause autodesk to feel threatened? leaving us to make sure and ask for 2004 format save downs from any consultants with 2007.

Yeah, I recently worked at a company where we had 3 designers, me with AutoCAD and 2 Mac users with PowerCADD, Illustrator and Form-Z. We generally had very little problems using DWG files. I just had to learn how to prepare the files for there use.

It doesn't work out. I can just see it now, telling our clients: "Yah, we don't use autocad anymore, we use rhino to create our drawings." The response would be: "Oh, really, well we don't use you as our consultant anymore, we use somebody else." Autocad is the industry standard. Most of the clients we deal with, specifically state in the contract that all work will be done in Autocad .dwg format for compatibility among all consultants. We couldn't switch even if we wanted to. And we don't.

Perhaps your clients need to remove their heads from the sand? Acad is a great replacement for a drafting board, you have to do all the thinking, and that means to visualise a 3D structure in your head and then convert that to a 2D image on paper, or Acad in this case. Use 3D and this visualising step becomes part of the cad process, therefore its faster. I bet your clients wouldn't argue about drawing formats if your quote was 30% cheaper than your opposition. Besides, most 3D packages have dwg converters that work extremely well. 3D is working smarter. If you want to work hard, work hard on selling the advantages of 3D to your clients, not by bowing to their narrow minds and persisting with 2D.

I will stop my pessimistic rant now

Perhaps your clients need to remove their heads from the sand? Acad is a great replacement for a drafting board, you have to do all the thinking, and that means to visualise a 3D structure in your head and then convert that to a 2D image on paper, or Acad in this case. Use 3D and this visualising step becomes part of the cad process, therefore its faster. I bet your clients wouldn't argue about drawing formats if your quote was 30% cheaper than your opposition. Besides, most 3D packages have dwg converters that work extremely well. 3D is working smarter. If you want to work hard, work hard on selling the advantages of 3D to your clients, not by bowing to their narrow minds and persisting with 2D.

 

I will stop my pessimistic rant now

More food for thought: I have a little expirence with dealing with clients, and I have observed some behavioral patterns with them. Clients who are relatively new to the arch industry and haven't much experiance in construction will be relatively easy to talk them into allowing rhino program vs. autocad because they will most likely not know nor care what the difference is. However, repeat clients who know how the tune of the song and dance will more likely stick to what they know and are familiar with, and will go to the competitor if they do not get the product they want the way they want it done. So it's about half and half for some people, and talking clients into a new program isn't always an option for some companies.

It's like the debate on text in model space vs. paper space. Some things work for some people that don't work for others.

Our clients are some of the biggest names in home building in California. You either do things the way they want, or they go elsewhere. There is no "talking to them" about anything. They define the terms in the contract and one of the terms is that all drawings are to be done in .dwg format, period. There are also the other consultants that have to use our drawings xref'd into theirs and vice versa. The formats have to be compatible. We deal with microstation files from time to time and it's a real pain having to convert back and forth when sharing files.

I respect your predicament cad64, sometimes it is just easier to give in to the man. But i will continue to fight for what i believe and that is 2D is old tech, 3D is smarter, faster and offers my customers substantial benefits beyond my competitors.

get this.., I've worked for some of the biggest builders in the west and I have used Rhinoceros and would they have known , no. and that was with v3 it was just better and faster to do the design in from concept the full set of CD's. sure I set my work to a company standard and used autocad in the end to do reprographics but this is a new day and Rhinoceros has more functionality beyond that of what it did then. it just didn't have 3 things page layout, line qualities(width/type), and hatch. well now it does and ALLOT more for every industry with out specializing in any... (entropy is the worst enemy)

and i believe autocad cutting McNeel off from being a reseller had a big part in the thinking of now we can give the people what they want

and with the announcement of a full parametric modeling tool ParaCloud coming beyond the new History, witch is unique and amazing itself.

please continue the rant above at your pleasure alkorm77 i liked where it was going.

& to pennylove, yuppers for sure some things for some, 'n some for others, the importance is to remember we always have a choice and options and where we devote our energy with the right amount of passion has allot to do with the quality of our end results.

in liberation, Diogenes' Teacher

and all compatible, the page layouts, line types *.lin files, hatches *.patt files. as you said interoperability is key and those that work to make there own products incompatible from there older products to please the stock holders are not a wise choice for us to follow or heed.

i mean these are wonderful times, i don't know why you are banned you present a really good argument and proved your point by being an example, you inspired me and i have choose my nick after learning of you.

i have asked for some scripts and gotten some amazing ones.

Thank you Antisthenes

Well this all sounds like a strange arguement

My exerience as an engineer working in an architectural practice was quite a shock!

I've never encountered such arrogance before. The denegration that 'engineers' came in for behind their backs from the architects in our office, and the wild idea that the only people who's input mattered in any given project was the architects just blew my mind

they had no regard for their function within a project - they were the be all and end all

if your client requires drawings in a specific format, it's for a reason. If you don't like it, and you think another software package can perform your function more efficiently, then go ahead and use it - so long as you convert the necessary files into the correct format before you submit them

I've also been on the receiving end of architects' drawings - which contain objects which seem to have been manipulated specifically to make the drawings difficult to handle afterwards. The amount of time, effort and money wasted in trying to sort out drawings into a useable format once an architect has been near them is flabbergasting

AutoCAD is the preferred tool for a multidisciplinary project because it is all things to all people - customisable, and a language that other professions can communicate in

and just for the record - it was me who suggested we look at using SketchUp for little projects such as house extensions :wink:

What about the many flavors from the Intellicad Consortium? I see there is even a ZWcad ad on this page and i have tried their demo and liked it. Found it compatable to my autocad dwg files and very easy to find all commands and buttons.

you have to pay for the profresional version on most open design alliance products: progecad, bricscad, intellicad to get the 3d capabilities. witch i find very useful for doing elevations sections and roofplans.

3D is great, however it takes so much longer to work with. We simply cannot justify the extra time required to work in 3D.

I respect your predicament cad64, sometimes it is just easier to give in to the man. But i will continue to fight for what i believe and that is 2D is old tech, 3D is smarter, faster and offers my customers substantial benefits beyond my competitors.

I think that's flawed on many levels and disrespectful to the credible circumstances already aired in this thread.

vertical software and their compatabilities are very important

see: ADTdirrect

vertical software and their compatabilities are very important

 

see: ADTdirrect

I agree. I see it at work, I see it on here and no-one is doubting that.

The problem seems to be the OP's insistence that 2D is somehow not required and only used through habit.

It does seem as though we have a troll.

I think that's flawed on many levels and disrespectful to the credible circumstances already aired in this thread.

Wannabe, that is a fairly vague statement, care to elaborate?

when delivering contract documents it is most nessisary

but at a more holeistic level where the Design review/entitilements are involved and color elevations and or persepectives are nessisary i feel starting in 3d is better so i can get all my documents better and even at the backend give me model to construction managers for takeoffs.

of course i can do both ways and am not limited to one or the other.

OPS? Troll? ok i avoild labels myself people are more dynamic full of empathy and shared values of life