Jump to content
fostertom

Inventor for building architecture?

Recommended Posts

fostertom

Copying from

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?64850-Thinking-of-cheating-on-my-AutoCAD-with-that-hot-new-Revit-program./page3

because Inventor has been suggested to me. Bear with the first bit below:

 

Going to post on all the AEC 3D forums I can find, might as well start here.

 

I am free to choose what AEC 3D program to get - what's this forum's advice? Familiar with Acad 2006 2D, tried hard with Sketchup but hate it - that's the sum of my solid experience, and I work solo - no handy guru so I've taught myself - slowly and painfully.

 

Going slowly mad in 2D because my buildings are not grand but have lots of detail and funny angles and my head bursts with all the manual trigonometry to draw elevations, sections correctly so they tie up, maintaining near-copies at different scales of detail.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=32771&d=1328653669 attachment.php?attachmentid=32770&d=1328653469

 

I have a vision of placing and intersecting shaped objects in 3D space, then seeing what the elevations sections etc look like - at whatever scale of detail.

 

Perhaps I don't need the clever tricks of Revit, Archicad, Bentley Architecture etc, but just a solid modeler like Acad 2010, Turbocad Pro, Microstation etc - or what? I don't want to install walls, roof planes etc as slabs - I want to be able to accurately model the finest detail of the interior of said slabs, with all junctions, birdmouth cuts done by boolean etc."

 

This was answered:

 

"As you are obviously quite adept at visualization and execution of compound miters and nonrectilinear shapes, you will be thrilled once you start modeling in 3D.

 

If you are mostly doing remodels and small jobs, and don't have access to good instruction in your area, then I should think that you might just want to go with Autocad 2012, building on your previous experience with Autocad LT."

 

and:

 

"The intricate details of which you speak might best be done with Inventor, but if you are drawing architectural plans as well, Inventor is probably the wrong tool."

 

I answered:

 

"I had a Mech Eng client who designed his hi-tech extension to Georgian terrace house, using Inventor (was instructive to see the lateral thinking and product sources he employed - he just called me in to solve Building Regulations issues etc). I saw the screen display, which seemed really hard to read, too much overlapping detail, and paper prints that somehow couldn't be made legible with lineweights etc.

 

I wonder if a Mech Eng solid modeller really can handle buildings. I had a play with Alibre, which showed me that in Mech Eng you're assembling pre-formed components, whereas in building you're all the time installing cuboid objects and boolean trimming them against one another in situ. Alibre wasn't set up to do that at all. What's Inventor like then?"

 

Advice would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

I would not recommend using Inventor to do architectural detailing of this nature even if the mechanical engineer did it. Most likely he did because that's what was immediately available to him. I'd recommend Revit or if you think that is just overkill for your needs then go with plain AutoCAD. My two cents worth. Feel free to ignore the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom

Thanks ReMark - can you say why not Inventor for architecture? That's the insider insight I'm hoping to receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

My personal opinion is that Inventor would be more suitable to the manufacturing community not the architectural community.

 

Have you taken the time to read up on Inventor? Click on this link and see how AutoDesk markets Inventor. It's right there in the very first paragraph. Then, after reading that, ask yourself if that sounds like the program you want to use to do the detailing for a group of objects that have no moving parts.

 

http://usa.autodesk.com/autodesk-inventor/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom

Sure it's overkill, wouldn't use 85% of Inventor, just the 3D modelling bit, without curvy surfaces (although many ancient buildings I meaure up and draw have v significantly curved surfaces in and out, which wd benefit from point-cloud capture!). How exactly does that bit compare with same within a) plain Acad 2012, b) Revit?

 

Key is: "in Mech Eng you're assembling pre-formed components, whereas in building you're all the time installing cuboid objects and shaping them by boolean trimming them against one another in situ" How wd Inventor handle that, as the constant/everyday process? In that, how does Inventor compare with a) plain Acad 2012, b) Revit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

OK...I see what you want. Yes, I agree with you, Inventor would do a bang up job of detailing cuboid objects and shaping them with boolean trimming. When you have completed one of your structures please post the results. We would all like to see what you have accomplished. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bishop

Inventor would very likely do exactly what you want, and do it very well. You'd never use about 90% of Inventor's capabilities, of course, but the ones that you would use ... you'd love.

 

As far as your friend's drawings being difficult to read ... sorry, but that's an operator issue, not a software issue. If you take the time to properly set up your drawing templates, you'll have no problem getting drawing output that is very easy to read and work with. The key, though, is to take that time. You can't just start drawing with Inventor's default settings and think you're going to get a fantastic output. You'll really need to get into the title blocks, stencil blocks, styles, etc., and set things up the way that you need / want them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SLW210

Why do you not want to use AutoCAD Architecture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

I think his friend the mech engineer sold him on Inventor. He seems keen on it so why not right? You can build a house with a hand saw, a hammer, and a spirit level or you can use a circular saw, nail gun and a laser level. Either way it gets built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tzframpton

Inventor would not be a wise choice. Sure, it can do what you want, but it has practically zero support architecturally for the program itself. So if you want to model everything from scratch, then by all means. If you use a program specific to architecture, you'll find a ton of content right out of the box as well as from manufacturers and users who have spent years of countless hours in developing and sharing.

 

The older I get in using trade-specific software the less time I want to spend creating things from scratch. I'd rather search Google for at least a starting point and build on top of it.

 

That's my $0.02 worth. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

Content specific to what you're doing. That's almost like suggesting one uses the best tool suited for the job. A reasoned approach. Let's hope the OP takes the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom
you'll find a ton of content right out of the box as well as from manufacturers and users
Thanks StykFacE - can I ask, is your verdict the same (not Inventor) if I say that I use practically nothing of that sort at present, in 2D Acad? About the only thing I use is Velux rooflights - and I cd easily make up a stripped-down trace over their .dwgs (not 3D anyway). I'd say 95% of building components are cuboid things that are trimmed to fit in situ. Even a manufactured window I can put into a model as a cuboid - all the builder wants to know is where to put the fixing screw - if I can trust him to put it the right way up!

 

So yes, I really am into modelling from scratch, tho I make much use of copy-pasting complex junction/assemblies that I've drawn previously. Then alter it in situ. I have a small no of Blocks I've made in Acad but they're a pain in use as they don't move (bodily) as part of a Stretch.

 

With that in mind, what's the opinion on Inventor?

Or other 3D modeller - something that does basic dimensionally accurate technical solid modelling (not nec curved) in a way that's as rich and flexible as Acad, without all the Mech stuff, with .dwg output?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

We seem to be going in circles. If you don't want to spend the time learning a new program use what you have (AutoCAD). Just learn to use it better. And upgrade too.

 

We fabricate tanks (ex. 3,000 gallon jacket reactor), platforms and clad steel buildings for our chemical plant using plain AutoCAD. It had better be dimensionally accurate since much of the design is now done in 3D and the 2D views are extracted.

 

Show us an example. If it can't be done in AutoCAD someone here will tell you so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tzframpton

My opinion is to not use Inventor. If you want to freely model architecturally from scratch, you can do that in AutoCAD, AutoCAD Architecture (aka: ACA), and Revit as well. The difference? You have trade-specific tools that save an enormous amount of foundational developing time. In ACA, the WallAdd command is phenomenal. No way you can build an entire floorplan with the dynamic ability to add doors, windows, etc. in Inventor. There's just simply no possible way Inventor can do it in the same amount of time frame. Inventor can build walls, doors, windows, etc. but the tools have a different purpose.

 

I mean, you can use a 3" long switchblade knife to cut through the trunk of a tree, but you'd probably rather use a saw. Get my drift? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom

Am I right that ACA is 'like' basic Acad? That cd be the one then, even tho it's regarded as the 'poor cousin' of Revit.

Sample .dwgs are on the way - having to purge things to get below 1M. Looking forward to comment on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tzframpton

ACA is built off the vanilla AutoCAD core, so it still acts like AutoCAD with "advanced tools". ACA stole a lot of intuitiveness from Revit, as Revit doesn't act at all like AutoCAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

Or you could use a chainsaw to cut down the tree. Just to make it challenging though, don't turn it on. Use the old "back and forth" motion like one would use with a bucksaw. Let us know when you've felled that tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom

Early schematic drawing - paperspace tabs 1 and 12 are the drawings as presented.

270G.dwg

In modelspace you're looking at multiple instances of 5 different plan views saved as Blocks, rotated so I can project from them to create elevations/sections in 10 potential orientations, for this non-rectilinear building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

In my opinion there is nothing so complex in that house example that someone here could not model it completely in 3D using plain AutoCAD. Would it be easier in a vertical product (Revit perhaps)? I wouldn't doubt it.

 

Did you take an opportunity to look in the Showcase forum to see examples of what other people have done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...