3d vs 2d

[jastuccio]

I am curious how many of you create 3d models instead of the old 2d floorplans then generate the sections, elevations, and details from them. I just got back into the field and am somewhat shocked by how much ACAD has changed. I would like to work with 3d models and reduce drafting to a minimum so I can focus on other things, but wanted to ask if it is really a timesaver. It seems like it could save a lot of time, especially when changes are made. What has your experience been?

[jaberwok]

3d is good in many ways but I wouldn't want to model buildings in plain, vanilla AutoCAD - the modeller is capable but the tools available for interacting with the model are limited which makes the process very time-consuming.

[jastuccio]

Jaberwok,

We use Acad Architecture 08. I am trying to decide how much of the 3d we should be using. The office does residential and commercial projects. I started learning revit and was impressed by it. Then I learned that ACAD has tools that generate sections from models. The idea of updating a model and having sections and elevations update themselves is appealing. I am interested in finding out what other offices are doing.

[dzatto]

Jaberwok,

We use Acad Architecture 08. I am trying to decide how much of the 3d we should be using. The office does residential and commercial projects. I started learning revit and was impressed by it. Then I learned that ACAD has tools that generate sections from models. The idea of updating a model and having sections and elevations update themselves is appealing. I am interested in finding out what other offices are doing.
Jastuccio,
Generate the 3D model, it will make your life easier. Also start using Project Navigator. There are many, many threads on it here. There's even a PN thread for all you questions.

I put it off for a few releases and finally took the plunge in 2008. Now I'm kicking myself for not doing it sooner. It's not that difficult, just a new way to do things. Full 3D in Acad ACA is the way to go. That's what the program is made for.

Get a copy of Paul Aubins book Mastering Autocad Architecture 2008 and skim through it. Pay special attention to chaper 5. It explains Project Navigator and how to set it up, how it works, etc, etc,.

Plus, if you do renderings you already have the model built. ;)

If you need any help, just ask. AUGI helped me figure it out. Now all my projects are full 3D using PN. I'm sure we can help you as well. :beer:

Be advised, though, that this is not Revit. The elevations and sections will not update themselves. You have to physically select them and refresh or regenerate them (depending on what you did to the model). Then they will be updated. It won't happen "on the fly". It's still light years better than doing all the linework by hand.

[jastuccio]

Thanks jaberwok & dzatto I am going to go check out the PN threads now.

[richardronan]

3d has a huge caveat.

It will save time in the schematic phase as the model is easier to understand all the implications of design. But cost you time in showing the details accurately.

It will cost you LOADS of time setting up the blocks to your specific liking. (but that is true of any tool)

You will have to be ok with the line work that ADT generates ... period. Otherwise modifiying the generated line work can be a bear. However, once you get ADT tuned the drawing can be quite nice.

In residential, be prepared to spend extra time on the roof.

In residential you should develop your own style of project division as there are a number of considerations where ADT doesn't combine the elements so cleanly.

The end product will be better but be prepared to spend more time (about 1.5x-2x) than before on projects for the first 4 or 5 times of each type of condition. Once you get through that phase and understand the how ADT works. You will experience significant time savings.

You will absolutely love the elevation and renderings generated and the positive client impact will go a long way to getting more work!

-R

[dzatto]

Good points.

keep in mind, though, that you can do too much detailing. It's easy to get carried away when drawing 3D. Sometimes, you need to take a break and ask yourself if you really need to spend all this time creating a 3D element that won't show up in any sections, elevations, plans, etc.

[jaberwok]

Good points.

keep in mind, though, that you can do too much detailing. It's easy to get carried away when drawing 3D. Sometimes, you need to take a break and ask yourself if you really need to spend all this time creating a 3D element that won't show up in any sections, elevations, plans, etc.

Very good point.

[dgorsman]

Good points.

keep in mind, though, that you can do too much detailing. It's easy to get carried away when drawing 3D. Sometimes, you need to take a break and ask yourself if you really need to spend all this time creating a 3D element that won't show up in any sections, elevations, plans, etc.

"Level of Detail" is something to be very aware of when modelling, and varies from discipline to discipline. Is it *really* necessary to model the stud bolts and nuts on piping flanges? Probably not - we can get away with a reference to a 2D detail drawing or even a standards document. Do we need to have hollow pipes and fittings? Again, probably not, as weights are standardized and calculated off of a part list or database rather than calculating the volume of each part.

We have gotten models of compressor skids from vendors where every divot and flute on the equipment, every bolt head, every ripple in the expansion joints, every louvre, is modelled. It might look "cool" on a render but for design work it is irrelevent.

[dzatto]

Yep, but all things considered, 3D still kicks butt!
I'll never go back to 2D drawing other than details.

[BeKirra]

Good points.

keep in mind, though, that you can do too much detailing. It's easy to get carried away when drawing 3D. Sometimes, you need to take a break and ask yourself if you really need to spend all this time creating a 3D element that won't show up in any sections, elevations, plans, etc.
True. But it all depends what area you work with.
If you are in the Architectural or Civil field, you don't need to draw soil particles on the ground, obviously.
It may be another story if you are in the Mechanical industry, you may have to detail the gap between equipment parts, even if it is as smaller as 0.01mm. You may also have to show the bolts, nuts & washers because you need to make a part list or equipment schedule.

Yes again, we all need to think the following:
1) Do we really need to head into the 3D playground? Why?
(This question is especially for some area of design.)
2) How will we make the balance of the level of Time Consumption and the level of Presentation/Accuracy in the specific field?

This is a good topic to discuss with, actually.

[jastuccio]

I bit the bullet and decided the project I am working on now should be 3d. Put the stairs in this afternoon and worked on the roof. I am using a book, Autocad Architecture 2008 by H. Edward Goldberg. The tutorials are ok, but I am not sure why he has me picking some options over others. Someone mentioned a book by Paul Aubin on the previous page. Does anyone know if his book is better? I did some Revit exercises from one of his books and if memory serves he does a very good job of explaining what the different options are for when executing commands.

Time to get back to work. Sections and elevations are due tommorow. Hopefully I won't hit any unexpected pitfalls :)

[cchallis]

My personal experience with AutoCAD 3d is as follows:

for doing partial models of buildings for working out complicated connections and detail areas Autocad is great. The large downside is that you need some kick *** hardware to cope. trying to model whole projects is possible but cumbersum and time consuming, especially when your client comes along and wants to change a whole bunch of stuff.

so... you either want to use AutoCAD Architecture (formally ADT) which will do everything you want. however (in my experience) it is an extremely complicated program and although it will do anything you possible want it can take days-years to get your head around the whole program.

but the answer is.... REVIT. it did have some limitations a few years back but they seem to have been resolved in most parts. its a very powerful program and most importantly its fast. its also parametric and if you client decides to move a whole bunch of things its no problem to do so.
a lot of people using Revit still use Autocad to do their detailing, my understanding is that it was because Revits detailing ability used to be pretty average. however in saying that i also believe that has been resolved considerably in the latest release.

there is a rumor going around that in a few years Autodesk is going to combine Revit and ACA into one program taking the best from both worlds and putting it together.

the architectural world seems to be taking off with Revit. i would get on this boat if you can, you'll have a lot of fun doing so.

cheers

corey

[jastuccio]

Corey,

We have Acad Arch 2008. I was learning REVIT because like you said it seems to be the future. It was impressive and a bit scary. As an entry level person it can do somethings that would take me a few hours with a couple of mouse clicks. It should shave hours of a project picking up redlines and coordinating drawings after revisions. You just change the model and viola. Lucky for me I am studying for B.Arch. I have decided to continue even though the AIAS always has stories in it's newsletter like "Recent grads Don't give up hope: here are some ways to stay in the field til you find a job" or "Is architecture heading for another lost generation" That is a subject for a different thread though.


The boss is good at 3d modeling but doesnt know how to put a set together using a model. I think he tried a few editions of ACAD back and wasn't happy with the capabilities. I am trying to bring my 3d up to speed and learn about the process because I think this would give us a big productivity boost. Im really happy where I am. I have no plans of changing offices so I backed off learning REVIT unless I hear we are bringing it in.

Acad Arch is complicated. I guess it needs to be because of the power it has. It feels like a new program vs the AutoCAD I was using 5 years ago, I guess in alot of ways it is. I was great with ACAD but find myself stumped on how to do things on a daily basis. ADT was around but none of the offices I worked at had brought it in yet so 3d is all new to me. I made some good progress with 3d today, but still I had to put that model aside. Tonight I am drafting sections and elevations the old 2d way. I plan to work as much 3d into the next project as I can. Maybe I will be able to figure out the quirks and use the section and elevation generators on that project.

Thanks for all the tips so far.

[dzatto]

Sections and elevations aren't difficult in ACA if you're using project navigator. That way, you just Xref all the constructs you need into your elevation file. Use the elevation tool, and it automatically generates them. Once done, you can right click on an elevation and edit linework if needed. You can also mask areas if you need to.

Same thing with sections, just use the section tool. ACA does it for you.

I think I'm the one who told you about Paul Aubin's book. It's a great book, you will learn a lot from it. I haven't read anything by the other author, though. So I can't compare the two.

As for Revit, this is such and old argument. Yes, I believe it's the program of the future, but the future isn't here yet. ;) I was asked a few years ago if I wanted to switch to Revit. After the demo, I didn't think it was "awesome" enough to start over learning a new program. Although, like the previous guy said, that was a few years ago. It's probably way better now. But I only do small commercial builidngs, and do some high end residential stuff on the side. All in 3D. ACA is perfect for me, and I'm pretty damn good at it. Why switch to Revit? It's all about making money, and I can make it with ACA! :mrgreen:

Now, if you're designing 300 sheet sets of a hospital or a college or something, then Revit may be a better choice. It all depends on what you need to get our of the program in my opinion.

[BeKirra]

...
ACA is perfect for me, and I'm pretty damn good at it. Why switch to Revit?
It's all about making money, and I can make it with ACA! :mrgreen:
...

Exactly!
Just like switching to Inventor from AutoCAD.

[jastuccio]

Same thing with sections, just use the section tool. ACA does it for you.


That is where I need to get to. I just ordered Paul Aubins book so we will see if it explains htings better.



Why switch to Revit? It's all about making money, and I can make it with ACA!


Because as a student you keep hearing about how REVIT and LEED will give you an advantage when interviewing for a job. Since I would have had to learn either one it doesn't make much difference to me, but REVIT seems easier to use form my limited experience.

[dzatto]

That is where I need to get to. I just ordered Paul Aubins book so we will see if it explains htings better.



Because as a student you keep hearing about how REVIT and LEED will give you an advantage when interviewing for a job. Since I would have had to learn either one it doesn't make much difference to me, but REVIT seems easier to use form my limited experience.
Ahhh, well I'm far from a student!! :lol: That's not an entirely true statement. I mean, if the firm you are interviewing at doesn't use Revit, then how could it give you an advantage? Same thing with LEED. It just depends on what you are doing and what the firm wants to do with you. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or that you shouldn't try to learn as much as you can, just don't dismiss ACA just because everyone says Revit is the future. There's still plenty of people using acad. :beer:

[markwise]

I have used Autocad since 1989 when Autocad was Dos release 09, now Autocad 2010. I work is mechanical engineering so I have hundreds of 2D drawings of valves, pumps etc and with these draw up complete factories etc. I changed to 3D drawing about 4 years ago and as I go use my 2D drawings to make 3D solids.
Last year I discovered walk through this year I am descovering rendering. I think plain Autocad is still good for all the 3D work I am doing and I would not want to change to another package that required redrawing my symbols and blocks.