Jump to content
fostertom

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

Recommended Posts

fostertom

Copying from

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showth...program./page3

because plain Acad 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."

 

Advice would be appreciated.

Will simple geometery creation be sufficient, without all the attributes and other tricks that Revit, ADesk Architecture etc provide?

Which Acad version (2009, 10, 12 etc) acquired full 3D capabilities, boolean, push-pull etc?

compare with Turbocad Pro? - which I already own, seems to do everything that Acad does, but big learning curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this duplicate post. Are you hoping for someone to say "Yes. Use Inventor! That's what it was developed to do."?

 

What makes you think Inventor would be any less difficult to use than TurboCAD Pro? Or even AutoCAD 2012?

 

Post a sample 2D drawing of what you would like to see done in 3D and let a few of the people here take a crack at it with whatever software they choose to use. Then you'll see what can and cannot be done.

 

I've seen some pretty amazing 3D designs done with nothing more than plain AutoCAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this duplicate post. Are you hoping for someone to say "Yes. Use Inventor
Didn't mention Inventor here - this is a parallel enquiry about plain Acad 2012, because that's been recommended to me as well as Inventor.
What makes you think Inventor would be any less difficult to use than TurboCAD Pro? Or even AutoCAD 2012?
That's exactly the sort of advice I'm after, from those who know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

Inventor does not work like AutoCAD. Take most everything you currently know about using AutoCAD and throw it out the window when it comes to using Inventor.

 

I offered you an opportunity to let some of us take a crack at one of your designs. Are you up for the challenge or not?

 

BTW...what have you done so far in 3D using AutoCAD 2006?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom

yeah - looking for a file(s) that's under the 1M limit

 

Failed completely on Acad 2006 3D - can't do boolean, for instance, v primitive. That's when I tried Sketchup, but so unreliable, fussy, faults inscrutable, soon lose track dimensionally and in alignment. Then bought Turbocad Pro cheap deal - looks excellent but another learning curve. Acad 2012 attracts because familiar. So Inventor is nothing like Acad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReMark

Check out the Showcase forum and see what people have created using all sorts of programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fahim108

As far as precision is concerned, I would always recommend AutoCAD for modelling. Moreover, since you have been using it for your 2D works, you won't have to switch to an all-together different learning curve.

 

Once you get a grip on it, there's absolutely nothing that this monster can't do! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fostertom

Been asking similar Q elsewhere, and in http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?66615-Inventor-for-building-architecture/page3 the advice is to go to Adesk Architecture (ADA) because it's familiarly Acad-like (rather than Revit) - seem to be saying the ADA shares the flexibilty of working of Acad - start anywhere, make it up as you go along (whereas Revit is for drawing up something that's fully fixed before you start).

 

My Q is - is that really what ADA is like, and can it be run in parallel with Acad, where Acad can do things that ADA's not set up to do? In other words, what will my experience be in ADA - really like Acad but with useful automation? Or as 'different' as Revit is?

 

Sure I will download a month's trial, and will ask all this in http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?56-Architecture-amp-ADT too - but any answers here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JD Mather

AutoCAD Architecture runs on top of AutoCAD - so AutoCAD commands will work as well.

 

Looking at your problem in the picture you attached it is purely a geometry problem to me.

These various tools (AutoCAD Archicture, Revit, Inventor...) have optimized tools for specific fields (architecture, mechanical...) while AutoCAD is more general purpose.

In any case your job will be to scale the 3D learning curve in one of them.

As is see this as a geometry problem, and as putting together the building is a matter of assemblying manufactured parts and on-site cutting (manufacture?) and as I know Inventor better than the other CAD programs - I could do this relatively easy in Inventor especially using the Frame Generator with custom profiles of standard lumber.

So the job is to pick the geometry tool that will be easiest for you to use in the majority of your projects and simply adapt techniques for your specific use that perhaps it wasn't optimized for (in my case adapting Inventor which I normaly use or mechanisms for architectural projects).

I would consider it something akin to torture to go back to AutoCAD for a design such as your picture depicts.

Edited by JD Mather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pablo Ferral

I agree with JD. I would use Inventor for this - because I use Inventor.

 

I wouldn't use AutoCAD because it's not parametric. 3D Modelling in AutoCAD is OK - but making changes can be a pig. And I can get Inventor to spit out my cutting tickets, and no-one likes writing those!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tzframpton

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
f700es

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

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...