Choosing a CAD software

[Ken]

Is there an easy-to-understand, user-friendlly, neutral website (or organization) where one can glance at, review, study, and perhaps determine which CAD software out of all possible CAD softwares is best suited for a particular architecture office? As an architect and draftsman, my personal opinion, though a love-hate one, is that VW+RW is the best for nearly all project types undertaken by an office of up to about 20 designers/draftsmen. But I can't speak against Autocad, for which finding proficient employees is "easier."

I also understand that Autocad is more capable for larger projects, that Revit is the add-on of choice for them answering the question of BIM, that Archicad leans toward 3D modeling with a weakness in creating construction docs (compared to others), that Sketchup is the current nifty way of loose modeling that imports easily into VW when VW's precise modeling is not called for, that there's a whole slew of "high end" applications such as CATIA, Pro/Engineer and Allplan (by Nemetschek AG), that there's also the "low-end" market such as 3D Home Architect/ SmartDraw for those individual land owners who want to tackle the design/drawing process themselves.

Also, what ever happened to the annual Architectural CAD Shootout?

[David Bertrand]

I'm only familiar with AutoCad and can't comment on the others. AutoCad can handle big jobs. A number of people can work on a project at the same time.

I don't understand why VW couldn't allow multiple drafters, but apparently it's difficult because workgroup referencing hasn't been perfected. See this thread:

http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthrea...=true#Post60374

I thought Revit was a stand-alone program, not an AutoCad add-on.

[Ken]

I had a chance to view the Residential Product Tour from NNA's Online Video Library. I realize that the entire library of videos might help persuade prospective customers (of the VW software). However, I can't help but think... how often do small firms do custom (new) homes from the ground up? And single-family detached ones at that?

The most common residential project undertaken by a small architecture office involve existing conditions. These are remodels, renovations and additions. The process, therefore, is that of creating a set of as-built drawings and model first, then modifying that file with design changes. In my experience, the feature-laden roof tool (Create Roof from walls or polygon) has very limited use. Oh sure you can insert dormers and skylights and dutch hips. Whoopee doo. Everybody who use it raise your hand. Yeah, just what I thought. The Roof Face command, on the other hand, is actually more useful because it's versatile. (So please don't mess it up by packing in questionable features such as fascias and soffits, LOL)

I use Roof Face about 98% of the time (Create Roof 2%). And for elevation drawings I use 2D lines (Convert Copy to Lines command), not viewports because of the awkward seams and lineweight problems associated with presenting a hidden-line-rendered model in side view. I need the control. I need the versatility. Every line I show has meaning. VP is a nifty concept, sure. It just needs a lot of refinement still.

So with those two missed targets, the Residential Product Tour, while snazzy and nifty, becomes irrelevant. As an architect I actually felt a little turned off by it. It makes VW seem more like 3D Home Architect/ SmartDraw.

...just another 2?...

I actually don't know much about Revit -- but they call it Autodesk Revit Building.

[Eoin R]

Can anyone out there put a coherent argument against Ken's second post.

We are very proficient at 2D Vectorworks and are considering using the 3D modelling route to create planning and construction drawings. What is putting us off is the sense from the VW documentation where everything seems directed to creating one off timber frame houses. Our projects are more urban and nature and in nearly all cases involve existing and neighbouring buildings.

In principle the 3D model route is persuasive. My worry is that this is not realistic for the type of projects we do and that the quality of the drawings (lineweights etc... ) will be poor and that the whole process will create more work rather than be a time saving route.

As I said at the start of this post I would be very interested if someone could give some clear views or advice on this.

As a postscript from having used Autocad, Microstation and Vectorworks (albeit for mainly 2D drafting) I would rate VW as good as the other two with the exception of larger scale projects where team work and referencing is crucial and as it stands VW does not cut it. On the other side VW is actually better in my opinion for small to medium sized projects where the combination of layers and classes allows all the project info to live on one file.

John Ryan

Camilleri-Preziosi Ryan Architects - Dublin

VW12.01

[mike m oz]

Arch.Ken, from what I have seen I am not sure that Revit or ArchiCAD handle remodels that well either.

It comes down to how you structure your jobs at the end of the day. If you try and do both the original house and the changed house in one file you end up having conflicts with elements that have to be partially demolished. To show them correctly in both views you can do this by having duplicate objects in different classes, but it is very easy to get confused doing this, and end up not have everything comprehensively covered in your two sets of drawings.

In my view it is better to model the house as is and produce a set of 'existing' drawings from this model. Then duplicate the file and change the model to reflect the proposal and produce a set of 'proposed' drawimgs from this model. Demolished and partially demolished items can be covered mostly by 2D annotation. Where necessary they can be in 3D dotted and with no fill.

The Roof Tool and Roof Face Tool each have their uses.

I agree with Ken that the model generated elevations need to be improved. They are better than they used to be, but there are still instances where lines appear that shouldn't, and lines that should don't. More control over line weights would also be a big help in making the drawings readable and professional looking.

Edited August 8, 2006 by mike m oz

[P Retondo]

I've done a number of projects, including new residences and additions, using full 3d design. I just finished a 3rd story addition to a single family residence. Modeled the whole thing, including existing structure, in 3d. It was invaluable to get all the alignments checked out in 3d before creating the construction drawings. Rendered views sold the project for design review purposes both with professional planners and at a neighborhood design review meeting (by the way, the completed building looks just like the model except for the paint color selected by my client).

On the other hand, I did all elevations by converting the model to lines, then cleaning up extraneous lines, adjusting lineweights, etc. Still easier than drawing them from scratch, and more reliably accurate since the 3d model had been checked out from all angles.

While it would be great if hidden line renderings could be used for elevations, I still wouldn't do a project like adding another story any other way, not to mention a complete new building.

There is nothing about VW that limits it to stick-frame construction. I never use the framing utilities anyway. It's more adaptable to Gehry-style design than any other program short of CATIA because of the NURBS modules. ArchiCAD and ADT don't deal with NURBS.

[panthony]

OK...so there really is no software out there that is perfect. ...but there is one that is close (more later)

I've used Auto CAD, Builders CAD, ARRIS, Chief Architect, Softplan, Data CAD and Vectorworks along with a few others that I'm embarrased to mention. I run a residential design firm and have for years searched for a software that does exactly what it claims.....havn't found it yet...and don't think it's out there. My standards are pretty high and I have found VW to be the most versitle (for the price) in allowing me to produce condocs that communicate the right information to the field. From remodel to new construction the building model is the way to go. Sometimes it seems time consuming and tedious but it is always worth the effort when I recieve feedback from the field that I saved time, effort and money in construction because the drawings were so precise. I just spoke with a client today who admitted that if the framer would have followed the drawing three specific issues would have been averted. They were minor however the drawings are where the buck stops...and if the field does not have confidence in your drawings you've failed to produce what your being paid for.

nuf said...

VW saves me time....and time is money. If I can create, design and develop in less time with a tool that must be sharpend than I will keep it sharp. You should never expect a product to give you perfect results until you learn how to use the tool. Software is another tool in the construction process and VW does a pretty good job at providing the tools. If it is not doing what I expect than I must be doing something wrong. I tell all my employees... you have the brains.... the computer is just a bunch of switches...flip the right switches.

Now here is a place to see all the software out there...

http://www.architecturalcadd.com/weblinks.html

It's all there you be the judge...what do you want the tool to do?

Pete Anthony

OVE Plan Service

[Ken]

I actually teach clients how to proceed on a project using the as-built drawings (with 3D model) as the starting point -- to design schemes then ultimately to construction drawings that include the as-built drawings all in one file. It's no big deal if extra layers can be tolerated. Most have roof face objects, few have the roof object, and nearly all have elevations converted to lines from the model (instead of viewports).

So the point of my original post was not so much new vs. remodeling projects -- just that the Residential Product Tour was a bit off the mark that I had to comment. I think it's too sugar-coated and missed the target by assuming wide use of the Create Roof command. I'm not expecting any software to be perfect.

I'm actually processing a refund for a customer who ordered VW through me. Their office have decided to reverse direction entirely and follow the experience of the new staff, absurd as it may sound, which is in the ubiquitous Autocad. They've decided to invest in new Windows-based machines, resulting in a new cross-platform network (currently all Macs), thousands of dollars in multi-seat licenses from Autodesk, as well as unknown technical support that will obviously not include me. It's quite shocking if you consider the history of the managing partner having built his business on a Mac and Minicad.

But facts will be facts -- and facts that may persuade them again must come from a neutral source, not some entrenched enthusiastic/ frustrated user like me. I know all too well what VW can NOT do. I can only state the facts as I know them.

So with sugar from NNA and sugar from Autodesk (and sugar from Graphisoft, etc.), how can any small office decide which route to take except to follow the path of least resistance?

(panthony, thanks for the link)

Edited August 8, 2006 by Arch.Ken

[mike m oz]

Its all about staff - if they have been trained on AutoCad or archiCAD it is very hard to get them to change to a program like Vectorworks.

NNA need to pull their finger out and really start pushing on the Education front.

(95%+ of them will go on to use what they learnt in Uni/College).

AND I MEAN REALLY PUSH - NOT THE TOKEN EFFORT THAT EXISTS AT THE MOMENT

Edited August 8, 2006 by mike m oz

[Christiaan]

Its all about staff

It is indeed. After a couple of bad Apples my boss is now convinced that new people need to be proficient in VW, or at the very least open to and enthusiastic about learning another CAD system. And in the later case you've got to be very sure they're not just saying it to get a job.

[michael john williams]

You think the US and NZ/Austrail are poor you should be in Europe and especially the UK - NNA do nothing! It is left to CU and they do very little. In Europe NNA are busy pushing Allplan rather than VW. There are no VW trade shows / NNA training etc.

[mike m oz]

David, VectorWorks can be used for large projects. There are many large and very large projects in Europe, SE Asia and other parts of the world which have and are being done completely with VectorWorks. (Unfortunately these don't get featured on the NNA site because of its predominantly USA focus.) It all comes down to how you structure and manage the project. Yes the Workgroup Referencing could be better, and I am sure it will be in the future.

For me though I don't want VW to become an Autocad clone. I like the way it works and does things. Notwithstanding this there are improvements I would like to see to thing like dimensioning, workgroup referencing and sheet management. NNA have shown in the past that they are responsive to user's needs and I am confident that we will see improvements in the areas that user's want in future versions.

[P Retondo]

new people need to be proficient in VW, or at the very least open to and enthusiastic about learning another CAD system.

Sad, but true. I like to hire people with that description, because I think they do a better job with everything, not just learning a new CAD program. But they still need leadership in the trenches, with at least one person who is very proficient and willing to mentor.

[David Bertrand]

mike m oz sez: I don't want VW to become an Autocad clone

I would like VW to clone the Autocad command structure complete with CLI and accessible vectorscript. Otherwise, I like the features of VW.

Autocad commands are verbal; drawing is like writing a story, ?line-from-int-to-midp?. Anyone who has learned to touch-type can get into Autocad rather quickly.

Vectorworks has abstract commands: ?2? for line; ?Opt-Shift-L? for trim (my favorite); ?Opt-=? for 2D rotate. In Autocad, it?s ?L,? ?TR,? and ?RO,? or ?line,? ?trim,? and ?rotate.?

Also, first time users find the ?TAB? type-a-number, ?TAB? type-a-number sequence a little awkward and frustrating, especially if you are holding down a mouse button with the other hand.

In time one can learn the VW commands and it won?t seem like such a problem, but this might explain why Autocad drafters are so reluctant to change.

Another thing I?ve noticed after working with Vectorworks for over a year (I?m retired, so there?s no pressure) is that mouse actions are very exacting with VW. You have to look for the cursor cue before clicking. That means scanning along an object until the right cue comes up, and possibly over-shooting. One has to be very precise in handling the mouse.

Mouse actions in Autocad can be very sloppy (and quick) and still hit the mark. Type ?midp? and click anywhere on the line and it will go to the midpoint. Trimming in Autocad is lightening fast: ?trim,? swipe, and click, click - done. Most commands are like that.

In Vectorworks, I?m finding it more pleasant to draw a line by going to the starting point and drawing a line, of no particular length, in the direction that I want to go. Then I make adjustments in the OIP. Same with rectangles or circles. Just start the object in the right place, make it a random size, and then make corrections in the OIP. It?s a more visual approach, but probably too slow for experienced users.

[P Retondo]

Vectorworks has abstract commands

mouse actions are very exacting with VW.

David, you can reset all the keyboard commands using the Workspace editor. It is a great idea, and something NNA should seriously consider, to provide an AutoCAD users' workspace that closely parallels standard AutoCAD command alias's.

Also, take the pressure off and reset your snapping radius (VW Preferences\Edit\Snap radius) to a larger number to reduce the required mouse precision!

[LarryAZ]

David,

I still have my 1.0 AutoCad manual. The best thing I always liked about AutoCad and FastCad for that mater was the single stroke key commands. With my workspace L is line, R is regtangle, < rotates 90 left, etc. I have used every key. This really improved my productivity.

[P Retondo]

And the great thing with VW is that it is truly a single keystroke - you don't have to hit <Enter>.

[David Bertrand]

Pete and Larry, thanks for the advice. I should have addressed this problem long ago. Now I?ll have to sit down and redo all my tool keystrokes.

Larry, how many pages are in that Autocad 1.0 manual?

[LarryAZ]

87 pages with additional 6 pages of really simple demo drawings. Space Shuttle not included. It's dated Nov '82. Also have the original brochure and a little write up description by Mike Ford.

[David Bertrand]

87 pages with additional 6 pages of really simple demo drawings. . . . Also have the original brochure and a little write up description by Mike Ford.

A nice souvenir. Should get you a bundle on ebay.

I've redone many of my hot keys and they work better. Only now, I keep hitting "2" for line instead of "L." "T" for trim is much better.

I've also discovered a way to make the tabbing easier and this may be of use to former Autocad people.

I start a line by clicking the mouse on the start point. Then I take my hand completely off the mouse and use it to enter numbers. I tab with my left hand. This way I'm able to concentrate on one thing at a time (uni-tasking). It's much less stressful and I make fewer mistakes.