Plain Acad 3D for building/architecture? instead of Revit ec?

[fostertom]

Thanks JD and Pablo. Parametrics is a point. I would love to create vast parametrics, so moving one thing would ripple thro the whole building - but know that's not possible.

Short of that, I don't yet see (tell me!) how parametrics would help.

'Frame Generator with custom profiles of standard lumber' - presumably parametric? - but cuboids are so easy to create on the fly, or copy from nearby. Then those cuboids only get re-sized by boolean intersection with another cuboid, in situ, not as a component before installation.

Because of this 'cut to fit in situ' procedure, in building almost every object is unique. The reverse perhaps of mech eng. In building you kinda start at Assembly level, shape all the components there, in situ, then maybe you look at Component level to see how they've ended up.

In 2D Acad 2006, I've learned to avoid making standard components as Blocks, because of many inflexibilities and annoyances that Blocks create - e.g. won't move with a Stretch, won't allow a linetype scale change if part of the selection, the slowness of entering and exiting blocks to edit them. So I am suspicious of Components!

[JD Mather]

... but cuboids are so easy to create on the fly, or copy from nearby. Then those cuboids only get re-sized by boolean intersection with another cuboid, in situ, not as a component before installation.

Because of this 'cut to fit in situ' procedure, in building almost every object is unique. ...

I am not a beginner. Not in Inventor. Not in AutoCAD.


Frame.jpg

[fostertom]

It's clear you are not a beginner - speak much sense. It's just I've become aware how v different building CAD process is to mech eng - not everyone knows that, and I've had mech modellers e.g. Alibre recommended which is completely incapable of building CAD process! So just checking. Soon, with money in pocket, I will find time to go visit a CAD dealer who will hopefully take a gd look at what I've been doing and wd like to do.

[StykFacE]

Please excuse me if this sounds rude because that is not my intent.

Personally, I think you are thinking way too far into this whole process. Just pick one, or more, and run with it. You'll find your groove in any decision you make.

[Dadgad]

Please excuse me if this sounds rude because that is not my intent.

Personally, I think you are thinking way too far into this whole process. Just pick one, or more, and run with it. You'll find your groove in any decision you make.

If I am not mistaken I think Stykface previously suggested getting one of the vertical products, which doesn't cost all that much more than a single, and would give you the best of all possible choices, everything. Use which ever one you choose for any given task. No constraints and no regrets. Have you checked on the Autodesk site to see the available vertical products, and how modest the price differences are from Autocad Vanilla? Why choose, when you can have them all?

[JD Mather]

Check with reseller for demonstration and budget for training cost roughly equivalent to the cost of the software. (in other words - double the cost)

[fostertom]

That's about what I thought - will do asap.

Can anyone tell me. what version of Acad did full boolean come in, for 3D? It is not in Acad 2006, but I remember there was a big upgrade of Acad's 3D poss 2009. And is that 3D capability essentially unchanged in Acad 2010, 2011, until the addition of Fusion in 2012?

Can anyone give comparison of recent Acad, with Turbocad Pro, which I do own and seems v capable?

[SEANT]

Boolean operations for Solids first became native commands back in AutoCAD 14. It should be part of 2006 (not AutoCAD LT).


2007 added a lot of freeform modeling capabilities, and each subsequent version adds incrementally to AutoCAD’s 3D tool set.

[JD Mather]

Rather than boolean (which was there in the last century) I think you are probably thinking of the Loft and Sweep and related NURBS added in 2007 as indicated by SEANT.

[f700es]

Looks like you do custom stuff and not cookie-cutter work. Is this true?