The future of CAD Training

[Roger Evans]

OK I'll have a go

Coming from the old hand drafting school I would say that hand drafting is a definite plus in educational terms ~ primary reason is that I find there is less interruption of the thought process when designing

I have never used Autocad or any other cad system other than Revit
I quickly gave up training in A Cad because I had no respect for the way it was put together. I had to adjust not the program adjust to me.
I thought it was ****.

Along came Revit 3.1 in the UK & I'm still here

In a few years We'll all be discussing 3D Holographic and how to colour it etc.

3D is the future go with it please

[Roger Evans]

Just curious

Any feedback on this yet?

What decisions if any?

Cheers

Roger

[hand471037]

Part of the problem and confusion here as I see it is the fact that, as an Architect, my real job has little to do with drawing things yet that is how I spent the majority of time doing my job.

Let me explain: I feel that my job as an Architect boils down to Getting the Project Built and Making Things Work. It boils down to Time, Money, and Function. It boils down to What goes Where, When, and Why. And it has nothing to do with drawing except that drawing has been the primary means of communicating design intent with others. So how does a CAD system focused on Drawing do much to help me do my job, when my job is not about drawing? What *ONE* feature in any 2D CAD system out there help me Get Things Built? That helps me do my job?

Whereas a 3D intelligent system that draws things for me, coordnates information, and allows me to capture and communicate design intent in new, clearer, easyer ways, and gives me feedback on how the building is coming together has much higher value to me. For it takes care of that 'dirty' work of the drawing production so that I can focus on what my job really is: Providing Value to by my Clients by Getting the Building Built and Making Things Work. Revit is a great information mangement tool for a working professional in the Construction Industry, and has little to do with the concept of 'drawing' things 'cept that it does produce drawings as a simple means of communicating Design Intent.

It's kinda like obsessing over the choice of my Word Processor if I was a Lawyer, because of the fact that I spend a lot of time writting stuff- when my job as a Lawyer has very little to do with writting, it's just that writting is the primary means they use to communicate. Certainly I could, as a Lawyer, learn the most complex and highly refined system for writting complex documents- or I could use a tool that's easy to use and helps me quickly capture my intent to communicate to others. That's why you don't see Lawyers using professonal-level word processors (like the kind they use to put whole books together in publishing houses) you see them using Word or Word Perfect, because it Helps them do their jobs by making the writting process more easy and automatic.

So what you really should be asking is whether you want to equipt your students to be able to Get Things Built or whether you want to equipt them to simply be good at drawing things. Builders vs. Draftspeople.

my 2 cents

Jeffrey

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Sorry I haven't updated... multiple deadlines and tax time in Canada.
Thanks one and all for your input. I have passed this information onto the program coordinators and I think they are appreciative of the comments.

This is still in the early stages for the college and they wanted to use the introductory session as a springboard to setting up Program Advisory Committees (PAC's) who will go into greater detail about the actual curriculum content.

I share the opinion voiced by the majority here. As we get further down the building modelling road, the tools used to create the documentation and records required for the life cycle of a building are secondary in importance to construction knowledge and the ability to 'put together' a building and understand the problem that becomes the design solution. Software choices will come and go and are dictated by the market, personal preference and, in some cases, the client preference.

The colleges presentation had a decidedly AutoCAD slant to it , and this fact was pointed out in the Q&A session. The response was, 'we have to provide what the industry demands'. The defacto industry standard is still AutoCAD so that seems to be the mind set in most respects. There is no point in providing an education that won't result in employemnt opportunities for grads so until the BIM ball gains more momentum this will be their focus.

To their credit the college did acknowledge the need to address newer methods and they will be trying to set up their programs to deal with the changing tide. Their job is to anticipate, not only where the industry will be in two years when the college opens in 2006, but what skills the graduates of the program (one and two year programs being offered) will need to find work and be useful to industry. Just look at the changes that have happened in the last 3-4 years and the enormity of the task becomes apparent.

In the meantime, I have volunteered to sit on one of their PAC's so I can keep on top of just what they plan to teach these kids. After all, someone has to save these innocents from a fate worse than 'the old way'

Thanks again for your interest and insights, and I'll keep you posted.