Non-ordinary walls then philosophy then tablets/flatscreens

[aghis]

This thread takes a detour off topic half way through but would be confusing to split so I've taken the unlikely approach to append the title and place this note, sorry for any confusion "Q"

I'm new in Revit 5.0. I use extensively ADT3.3 and ADT2004.
I have a question concerning non uniform walls.

Ex. A wall that has two components and one of them has a variable thikness. In ADT you can do this with "plan modifiers" or if the doforlation is in 3d you may use "Body modifiers".

doforlation = deformation...I think..."Q"

As I understand in Revit you may create a In-place Wall familly. However, the wall generated with this procedure has some problems:
1. with cleanups (with the other walls) and
2. it is not a configurable wall. I have to create a different familly for each particular wall in my plan.
3. If I have an Inclined surface, the windows do not follow the slope, they stay vertical...

Thanks for the advice

aghis

[gregcashen]

or if the doforlation is in 3d you may use "Body modifiers"

DOFORLATION? I am glad I don't use ADT!

[hand471037]

Actually, you wouldn't want to do this with a in-place family, I would think. You may better off making a new wall type consisting of those two layers, and just make different types for the different thicknesses you need. Seeing that you'll most likely only need a couple of widths, and how trivial it is to define a new wall type (it's very different from ADT's Styles), this should work well.

If you really need to have it be changeable on the fly, then you might want to look into making a parametrically-based generic family. If under the family settings you tell it it's a wall, it will clean up with other walls and such. The same is true for in-place families as well. The reason it's not is that you probably didn't tell Revit that your in place family is supposed to be a wall, and as such, Revit doesn't know how you want that thing defined/interacted with.

Jeffrey

[aghis]

Jeffrey,

I think that i did not express my self very well.
I send a jpg illustrating the kind of walls I would like to create for my project.
I would like to know if this is possible with Revit (I guess it is) and I would like to know if I will be able, whatever the form of the wall is, to change the components globaly for all the walls whether they are deformed or normal.
[/img]

[hand471037]

Yes, you can do this, and yes, you'll need to porbably use in-place families and/or elevation profiles.

Now, what is that added bit made out of? and what would you be changing about it? I still don't quite understand what it is that you are trying to do... Would only the 'backing' part be changing, or would the more random bits be changing too?

[aghis]

In ADT the deformation is attached to the individual wall, the "entity" not the style or the Family.
That way when you change the style all the walls of the same style in the drawing (either they have a deformation attached or not) reflect the changes.
This is important because you just have one wall style for let's say all the exterior walls of the project. It seems that in Revit I have to have a Family for each and every "deformed wall". In my case will make too many families, because I work often with old buildings in the historical centre of Paris that have a lot of non uniform walls.
I also start the project defining wall styles with one simple component of the total wall width and as the project is developed I refine the styles adding components within the width. As you may understand, in Revit I have to do this refinement for each and every wall family.

You may forgive the comparison between ADT and Revit. But I'm currently comparing the two products.

[Steve_Stafford]

I believe you could accomplish what you are after with in-place families for the protruded "window" treatments. A wall hosted family could be applied to create those, akin to a shutter or a column pilaster. As long as it was cut by the cut-plane it should wrap the thicker portion. I'd be inclined to create those in an elevation view and extrude them out from the face of the wall.

The curved wall type in the upper left corner of your image would be more difficult, but I believe that could be done with an in-place wall family extruded up from the ground to get the profile...can't say how the window would behave, guess I'd have to try it.

I'm sure there are other approaches...

[hand471037]

Yeah, I've heard about this being an issue for ADT people, that in that in Revit you can't redefine the thickness of a wall on the fly like you can in ADT.

The 'support' wall that the deformed bits are stuck too could be a simple wall family; and yes, while you would have to have a type for each thickness, it really is trivial to create those new types. Are you making whole new wall families rather than family types? You know that you can click the 'duplicate' button, give it a name, change the thickness, and be done?

Also, what are these walls made of to where no two are alike? I'm currently working on a building that's 150 years old (a drop in the bucket to you in Paris, I'm certian, but here in California that's really old!) and even it at least has two walls that were made the same way :)

Anyways; look into wall-hosted Families for the deformed bits, and custom in-place families (that are defined as walls under the 'Family Catagories' settings) for the 'backing' (or a long list of Wall Types), and you'll have what you want it sounds like.

Jeffrey

P.S. I've found that it's easyer for us to use Revit for Historic work, because it's much faster and easyer to make the custom objects that reflect the existing conditions, even if we have to have many many types for the different sizes. I can't imagine trying to do that in ADT; but then the last version I really did any work with was ADT 2 and so it's probably gotten easyer to make custom content. But still, I can't see how you get much of a return for all that time spent making custom styles and multiview blocks in ADT; also I would be concerned that only one person, the CAD manager, in the office would know how to do it, rather than anyone on the team able to when using Revit.

[aghis]

I'm not that sure that I understand very well how to use Families. If I want to create the first type of wall (on the left in the image) the one that has one of it's components deformed I pass through the create button. I choose as family type "wall" I draw the components on plan view according to the needed form and I extrude them. However the Result is close to what I want but I cannot change it's length or height parametrically (I can modify it's length or height only by modifying the family type) and the Windows are not applied on both components.
So in my case I have to do that for each specific wall, don't I? See attached file.

I have to agree that Revit is much easier to use and to learn than ADT.
I think that the non-layer organisation is rather interesting.
And of course the possibility in Revit to use only one unique file for all the levels of a building is something I appreciate very much specially for small buildings. (In ADT you have to have a separate file for each level)

However I find that there is very little help and tutorial resource available.

[hand471037]

OK, so I was able to make it parametric. In order to make it parametric, you have to lock your extruded shape to grids, ref. planes, or levels. Now it will stretch when those things move. Try it out. Also I locked it to a 'backer wall' like I was talking about, just to give you an idea of how that would work. See, the 'backer wall' is not an inplace family, but a wall made by the wall tool, and as such if you changed it's type perameters it would globablly change those walls.

As for your windows not working in the wall... well you need to make the Window families a little different in order to make them work. I'll get into it later, I've got to go now. But here's the file, it only took about 5 minutes to make it work.

> However I find that there is very little help and tutorial resource available.

Wha? You mean that there isn't very many books out yet? Revit comes with a huge amount of Tutorials, a huge help file, and there are on-line training classes that you can do too for free (or at least there were, don't know if AutoDesk has kept them) as well as a couple of very active areas for help. Do you feel like the included tutorials are bad? is that what you're saying? For there are a lot of them that come with the software... Are have they not been included with the Frendh Version? Not to be offesive, but just doing some of those basic tutorials would help you out a great deal, for some of the problems you are running into are kinda basic stuff.

[aghis]

I was not able to reed your file since you have a more recent version than mine I have 5.0 built: 20030306_1500 I will try to have an update.
But I think I understand your explanation about locking the wall to grids and réf-planes However, this is not a parametric family but an "object anchoring". I mean that if I interrogate the walls' properties I will not find a length, height or width "field" that I could modify. However, if I move the ref-plane the wall will change. In other words the entity is a wall not because of its editable properties but because it will be able to host windows and doors and react with them.
Could you please send me the window file, the one that can be inserted to a "deformed" wall?
I also have another question:
Does a door or window family have a parameter for its opening? (Ex. I have two doors of the same family inserted on a wall and I want to be able to control the pivot of the "leafs" of the door so that one is represented closed and the other opened, without having to create a modified the family).

I think that the tutorials given with the software are very interesting but the do not go deep enough; this goes the same for the online tutorials found at Autodesk.
For example the question I'm asking about walls that are not orthogonal (something very common in Real life) there is nowhere you can find a hint of how this could be done so one must have to find answers in the "Discussion groups". I might be looking something similar to the "Brain Dumps" diffused for ADT, you know texts explaining the "philosophy" of the different concepts and developing all the possible configurations and applications for each one of them. I think that definitely the ADT tutorials and online resources are better (not the ones you knew back in v.2 but the one for the v.3 and v.2004) although it takes you much more time to learn to be able to produce a correct drawing and to control the totality of a building (a lot of fine-tuning for the objects, not a pre-configured structure for levels views etc.)

[aggockel50321]

I don't think you'll find many on this forum that share your views about ADT tutorials & help, but, if you really feel that way, why don't you stick with what you feel comfortable with & do the stuff with ADT??

[aghis]

I will not argue on that.
I'm only trying to find out how things work. It's true that I, personally can do more stuff with ADT since I use it every day!!!
My point is that the main problem with all "architecture specific" software is that their "key features" and "intelligent entities" work very well if you stay in simple orthogonal buildings. By the moment you start creating complex geometry you have to compromise, and you spend too much time trying to model your building without loosing the "intelligence" of the entities. It is also true that in the Revit tutorials you can easily access complex concepts of the software about parametric modelling but vital modelling capabilities are not explained. Ex: inclined walls and how to create windows on them aligned with the wall surface.

[Steve_Stafford]

I believe Revit deals nicely with >95% of what architectural design documentation requires. As for the remaining <5%, I fully appreciate the desire and need for better tools to describe "sculptural" designs, but I'm glad the product exists despite the lack. Though one could argue that it isn't lacking, just isn't as fluid or efficient a process as the routine linear stuff. Akin to how easy it is to actually build a sculptural building design.

For me, the fact that Revit nicely deals with the more mundane (but very important) aspects of document coordination and detailing more than makes up for any real or perceived weakness in modeling ability. If comparing products, one might be able to better model something but will it help you do the rest of the tasks related to the overall project as nicely? Personally I don't think so.

If your practice is predominately in the 5% region then perhaps your needs won't be well served yet. In time I'm confident they will be, remember Revit is young and vital. Hang in there and don't forget to talk with Revit support about your issues. They want to help you and me better understand and use the product.

As for manuals/tutorials, imagine your task today is to compile a comprehensive set of M/T's for "your" product. Given this profession, could you satisfy every particular permutation in these documents? I'm positive I could not even imagine every kind of situation that might look for a solution. This is the quandry of every M/T that exists, they will always be lacking something, unfortunately at one time or another each of us will search for something that didn't make it in.

Revit's M/T's are very good at giving you an overall understanding of how features work. When you reach the point where you have an overall understanding of how Revit works you begin to see how to accomplish those things that are beyond the norm. You've reached this point with ADT already and in time you will with Revit.

[aghis]

Steve I totally agree with you.
However I do not think that my interrogations on the ability of architectural software to compile with needs of "sculptural architectural forms" is something that comes after "a good understanding of how to achieve "normal" things. In my sense there is not an "in the norm" and a "beyond the norm" architecture.

When you reach the point where you have an overall understanding of how Revit works you begin to see how to accomplish those things that are beyond the norm. You've reached this point with ADT already and in time you will with Revit.
What I appreciate in Revit is that is a "much fresher" software with a promising future development. And I can assure you I had, and still have, similar problems with ADT. And I had the same doubts and questions when I started working with ADT. And again I'm not comparing products I'm just having a "philosophical interrogation on "architecture specific" software (that's why I'm posting to the "general discussion group")

I believe Revit deals nicely with >95% of what architectural design documentation requires.
In other words I consider that "architectural software" is a great advance in document production. Nevertheless, documents production is an issue for draftsmen not architects. In the time of glory of Autocad, architects used to share a common platform with engineers, designers, industry etc. The main issue was collaboration. The "wisdom" of autocad was that (being conceptually a simple tool: like a paper and a pen) it could be adapted and used for all drawing needs. I used to design my buildings using "architecture specific software extensions" and the same drawing was implemented by the engineers (that used their own software extensions). No translation was needed. At the time the main issue was collaboration. My autocad 3d drawings were much closer to a real life model than my ADT or Revit files. The furniture I designed, although "far beyond the norm" were send directly to the manufacturer that used the same DWG file to command his computer controlled equipment to cut and assemble the final object.
Let's see now what happens. Architectural software has "structural members" but there is not an correspondence with any entity of any engineering software. And when I have to collaborate with an engineer I have to send him 2d drawings (a kind of electronic hardcopy). Don't you find amazing that in the past years architects use PDF files to exchange their work? I have walls and doors that even if they are produced by manufacturers they can be read only by my software because they are "software specific". One could call that the "Babel tower" of architecture, in the era of communication we reached the "zero point" of collaboration.
I have to agree with you what seems to bother developers is "document production"!!!
I do not think that these are interrogations accessible only to "advanced users". It is a simple questioning of the nature of the " software tool".

[Steve_Stafford]

In my sense there is not an "in the norm" and a "beyond the norm" architecture.

On a philosophical level I agree with you, in a practical and very real level (true for my employer and practice) there is definitely "common" place architecture versus "higher minded" architecture. As they say in another field, automobile racing technology filters down to everyday automobiles. I believe to a certain extent the same is true for architecture.

My role is that of draftsman, on the road to architect, so I live in the 95% world I refer to...looking over the "fence" at the 5%. What excites me about Revit is that it really addresses the business, the product that architects manufacture.

I do not wish to seem to be demeaning the theory and philosophy of architecture in favor of utilitarian buildings that lack soul and aesthetic appeal.

It is ironic as you say, that in an age of communication that we can be so "disconnected" now. I believe that this is unfortunate, but to move forward we must sometimes re-build, particularly when the "structure" is neglected for so long.

Keep up your interrogation of architectural software, we will advance our cause when we continue to examine, question what and why we do what we do.

Have you used SketchUP yet? I think you will find it an interesting product for conceptual studies...but again it does accentuate the lack of communication you describe since it can only communicate in a very simple way with other applications.

[PeterJ]

I don't really find any of the drafting/documentation tools terribly beneficial for design. I do like the opportunity to get more accurate more quickly than I can with a pencil and a roll of trace, but I find getting accurate early on can often slow the design process. I downloaded Architectural Studio a few months back and last week bought a graphics tablet and suddenly that is a very powerful design tool. As a case in point I through out a lowish resolution rendering from Revit that showed the primary massing and had the right materials such that anyone looking at it could see what was going on in terms of construction then in an hour and a half I was able to scribble over it giving 6 differs in sufficient colour and size accuracy that the client, a lay client, could follow what was going on and make informed decisions. For my money I think it will be a long while before the sketch products and the documentation products overlap or integrate really well but using the right tool can really make you work quickly.

On the other hand, and in response to aghis' original questions, I work in London and work a lot with existing buildings. We don't tend to cut through them at survey stage so we don't tend to know what the walls are made of in great detail. To get over this I use a generic wall at the appropriate thickness and then paint the surface with an appropriate finish, that way I don't need to know the detail make up of the wall but it will still elevate/render as required. If I found myself with an attachment to a wall of the form you show I would simply model this as an in-place family as Jeffrey's guidance as I find it unlikely that I would need to know exatly the nature of the construction of such an item, further more in many cases, excespt for the wall of varying plan thickness I would probably have the contractor hack off the attachment and make good so something that could be readily defined and demolished would tend to suit my working needs. It seems to me that you are looking a little bit for something that you don't need, unless the examples you gavce were wilder examples and not true to your generak requirements.

P

[aghis]

Steve,
Yes I used sketch-Up and Architectural Studio. I find Sketch-Up A very interesting modeller however, fast enough in the design process it becomes complicated to manage the drawing since it is a surface modeller and everything is a bunch of surfaces that you have to modify individually. By the way ADT2004 massing modeller seems inspired by Sketch-Up (vertex controls, cut planes etc). On the other hand what I really like In Revit is the idea of relationships. This is rather close to how architects think and this is something I miss in ADT: Giving conceptual axes, locking position of objects building equality conditions. These are the only "conceptual architectural tools" tool but there are one few features like that. In 3dStudioMax you have an interesting concept of "controllers" that give you the possibility to link objects in different ways and not just in "orthogonal relationships like in Revit. Of course this is possible because in Max you deal just with X,Y,Z coordinates of objects. And if this sounds way to far from architectural software, we could consider that advanced users of Autocad could achieve this using "Auto Lisp" and accessing the geometry of the objects. Unfortunately Lisp does not work with ADT entities. (Lisp is not just an API, since it is not a compiled language you can use it strait away on your command line during the drawing process)
So to make the long story short, I would like a software for architects close to the concept of Inventor where: you conceive the abstract mechanism, build by mechanical relationships, and then you use parts to build the actual model of the mechanism. This is what I could consider a "tool" that helps you create. And again if I refer to Autocad is not in the terms of a comparison but to underline the importance of "collaboration" and the benefits of the existence of a common platform for design. Autocad developed in time according to the need of all the different professionals that used it. As an Architect you could benefit of this development and if you really needed to go further in design you could actually buy extensions that where not made for architects but could help you in your conceptual work. You will tell me that the specialised software for industry became too specific and the had to detach the extension of autocad to create a new stand-alone application. It's true. and what happened with "architectural software" what happened with "architecture needs". Developers considered that the main need of architects was to go faster with trivial everyday work.
I do not thing that there is a real development for architecture in the software industry, maybe this is why architects generally are not close to the developers or that architects are not developers them self's. It is true that engineers, manufacturers or special effects designers most of the times know how to program so there is a healthier relationship between them and the software. The thing I fear the most is to see software like Autocad become like Archicad (the software I hate the most in the world) and unfortunately this is what happens with software industry today. We go back to a stage where we start developing architectural software from the beginning forgetting all the advantages we had with previous software destroying all collaboration bridges between professions exchanging information with PDF!!!

[aghis]

Peter,
I used Architectural Studio, it's a grate tool for sketching and collaborating sketches but there is too little collaboration with other software and peculiarly enough with autodesk software.
It seems it was designed for practices that architects never draw they just sketch and give the sketches to draftsmen to redraw them in Autocad or whatever.

[PeterJ]

I'd agree that AS lacks any real collaboration tools with its Autodesk cousins other than dxf, or maybe even dwf, I forget which, but there is some communication. You can export a dxf and an ADT model, but only if you gave ADT3.3 or higher on your machine, which I don't.

You ought to be able to export the same to Revit as a mass model and perhaps even be able to import a Revit file, with some filter controlling what degree of information comes through.

For me it can be quicker to sketch something get feedback then model it myself rather than model it for feedback. It also has other features that, for example, enable a lot of info to be combined and tweaks made piece by piece to show all your options in one sheet.

P

[hand471037]

Honestly, (now that this thread is completely off-topic in regards to modeling irregular walls within CAD) I have to admit that AS and Sketchup!, no matter how good of progams I think they are (I've told a ton of people about sketchup! as a low-cost modeling/design alternative), were perminately rendered illrelevant for me after I tried using Revit on a Wacom Flatscreen. At AU last year I fired up a demo copy of Revit on one of the test HP machines within the lab that had a Wacom Flatscreen attached to it. These are the flatscreens that you can draw on like a Tablet PC. Two hours later I was 15 minutes late for my class and had drawn/modeled, to the end of schematics, an entire outdoor pavillion (barcalona-esque) in 3D with site, interior, furniture, renderings, sun studies, *everything*. And I had changed the design about four times! Being able to draw on the screen made it so fast to use something like Revit, and so fun, that all I wanted to do for the rest of AU was play with the Wacom flatscreen. And if I wasn't such a poor *******, I'd buy one tomorrow. So, while these design-centered CAD tools are interesting, once the interface becomes 'transparent' (ease of use in Revit + Wacom Flatscreen = transparent interface to the CAD model), it becomes moot whether you are using a full-fledged 'production' tool or a 'design' tool.

Also I have to admit that aghis' views on drafting vs. architecture are interesting. I can't help but think about the fact that two architects, using Revit, can do the same work as a much larger team using traditional CAD, and that those market forces of Automation and out-sourcing will only get 'worse' (personally I think these things are good things), that Draftsman will go the way of the typing pool, and Architects will become a bit more like what we used to be many many years ago: Master builders heavly involved with the actual construction and developement of buildings.

A fine example: there is an architect in Montana that modeled a building in Rhino, used his CNC mill to carve complex concrete forms, poured the pre-cast peices, and then put them together on the job site like a big ol' jigsaw puzzle. That guy built a custom-made, complex, curvy four story concrete and glass and steel house for about $100,000 because he didn't have to make CD's, did it design-build, and the CNC mill did most of the work in making the forms for the precast bits so then he could use unskilled labor to assemble them. *thats* where the future of Architecture is in my mind, not in acedemic circles!

[sbrown]

the architect/drafter is totally one, if desired now with revit. I am the only one doing the sd,dd and cd for a 100,000s.f. medical office building and I am doing it in less time than it would have taken probably 4 draftsman on autocad(just drafting) we are also designing it on revit as we go, yes it started with 2d sketches(thats still how most of us get the original thought out) but then as soon as the model is started the design in done instantly as the thoughts come and then redone and redone again. the sketch it up, and pass on to a drafter is eliminated almost completely from our process.

[J-G]

Two questions for Jeffrey:

1) Is there any written information on using Revit with the flatscreen tablet? How well was the interface between the program and hardware? I had no idea that Revit supported such a method, but it sound really interesting. Did it increase productivity for desdev and condoc stages as well?

2) what is the name of the architect in montana???

[David Conant]

Two years ago, we loaded Revit on a Sony Vaio with a Wacom tablet screen and took it to the AIA annual convention in Denver. Without any modificaiton of Revit, the application was fuly usable. The biggest problem I noted was the ergonomic issue of the keyboard. With some thought, it would not be difficult to come up with a workstation layout that provided for easy access to the keyboard for text and numeric input, while not having the keyboard interfere with operating the tablet. For limited amounts of text, we loaded a sirtual keyboard applet that displayed a keyboard on screen.
The mouse interface we have all grown used to over the years is a very crude way of translating thought into graphics, like drawing with mittens on. For many it is an almost insurmountable barrier. I think this speaks to the importance of connecting the physical act of using the tool, and the visual feedback of the mark being made. In contrast, the drawing experience on the tablet screen was very natural. I observed many visitors causally picking up the stylus and begin modeling with no more than 30 seconds of orientation. I saw many architects who would normally be classed as neophytes, phobics, and "too busy to learn" (we all know some of these) doodling away almost unconsciously. In many cases they began to smile within a minute or so.
In my opinion, there are many designers who will finally realize the potential of design computing only when they have this more direct interface. It would be interesting to take a Revit machine with one of these tablet screens and give it to senior design staff and see how it effects their work process.
Keep up the experimentation.

[Wes Macaulay]

When I was in school, I was one of the last stragglers to get into CAD. Since then, most of the graphical input to CAD has been done with a mouse, so I am accustomed to it, and find the tablet a little frustrating for CAD work; the same applies in Revit.

But give me Autodesk ArchStudio and out comes the tablet. The mouse is useless!

I can see the previous generation of architectural staff modelling in Revit with a tablet; the disparity between CAD and sketching isn't nearly as great for them.

The connection between Revit and AAS is simply taking images from Revit (JPGs) and sketching over them in AAS. I don't use AAS' modelling capabilities much because the resulting geometry is dead when it comes into Revit.

[bclarch]

The reason that we subscribed to Revit is because the owner of the firm and I went to the AEC show in Chicago and saw Revit on the Sony Vaio and the tablet. My boss felt that this was a program he could potentially use because of the pen input possibilities. We never did get a tablet and my boss only played around with Revit a little bit when we first got it but hasn't done much since. But the pen input idea is definately a big draw for the pre-computer generation of architects.

[hand471037]

Jon:

1. Wacom tablets & Flatscreen Tablets work with any software and don't require anything special. It's bascially thier tablet combined with a flatscreen. So it plugs into your monitor port, just like a flatscreen, as well as a USB port, just like a tablet. You can still use your mouse and everything. It really is just a combo unit, no different than a stand-alone tablet & stand alone flatscreen. Wacom tablets are *very* different from CAD tablets of the past; they work in such a way that the computer thinks they are a mouse, but are also pressure and angle sesitive (altho only photoshop seems to take advantage of that fact), with the boundarys of the tablet being the edges of your monitor (altho you can redefine that if you need to). They simply plug into a USB port, and work with any software without program-specific drivers. Where you move the pen, the mouse cursor follows, so on the flatscreen the pen becomes the mouse pointer. You can even customize the pen settings per application, so that the pen behaves differently when used with AutoCAD as it does with PhotoShop. But it still just directs the mouse pointer, rather than being like a traditional drafting tablet. Wacom tablets were first made for artists; it's just that i the last few years have they been picked up by other people too.

The Wacom flatscreens combine thier tablet technology (that they have made for years) with a high-quality flatsceen monitor. It really is a monitor that you can draw on!

I've been using a Wacom tablet (not the flatscreen, just the stand-alone tablet) for the last six years, two different models, an 'Art-Z' (that I wore out two pens on :) ) and now an 'Intous'. I hardly use the mouse at all; it's only pulled out for web browsing (due to the pen lacking a scroll wheel and middle mouse button functions in Mozilla that I love) I've found that the Wacom pen makes me about 20% faster in CAD/3D/Revit and even faster in Photoshop work (due to the pen's pressure sensitivity). It also has releved any kind of pain and/or stress on my wrist. I'm a total tablet convert, and have gotten several other people into them. I won't give it up until you pry it from my cold, dead hands. :)

My dream is to have a flatsceen tablet the size of my desk. That's all I want. :)

The only issue I had with using Revit with a Wacom Flatscreen was that the pop-up right-click menus, which you use a lot, pop up directly *under* your right hand (if you're right handed), making them hard to see until you move your hand. This was something that I bet the UI designers of Revit, or any other softare, never thought of! :) I didn't have any issue with keyboard, however, for I just had it in front of the tablet and found it to work well. As soon as I can buy one I will, I'm hoping that thier next generation tablets (probably not due for a year or so) will be cheaper and I'll finally be able to buy one.

Here's the link: www.wacom.com

2. The architect's name is James Massie, I think, and here's his web site:
http://www.massiearchitecture.com/main.html

Check out that cool custom sink!
http://www.massiearchitecture.com/images/bb-upsink.html

Damn, now I want a CNC mill *and* a wacom flatscreen!

Jeffrey

[David Conant]

Some of us (the creative ones) are lefties. :lol: Actually, we have never made any specific adaptation of the UI for the screen tablet, so there are likely to be a number of small issues like that.

[Steve_Stafford]

Since my earlier post seems to have derailed the thread here on to an equally facinating discussion...I'm tempted to move the latter half of it to it's own topic so it is accessible on it's own merits. Anyone object?? (I guess I don't have to ask... :twisted: ...but if I don't get any, moved it will be.

And I too would love a Wacom tablet....David this would be a great giveaway door prize at one of your AU classes, what do you think :shock: ...got the budget for it? :shock:

[hand471037]

If a tablet is what you are after, they can be had for $100. If it's a flatscreen tablet you're after, then they are at least $1000 used; and $1800 new (for the small one!).

[Steve_Stafford]

Actually I'm after the Flat Screen, Intous is it...resolution is still an issue with them though right...can't get 1600x1200 if I recall.

But the tablet would be cool give away, the flat screen would flat out knock em dead...pun intended :D

[hand471037]

Actually, the Intuos ones are the non-flatscreen ones, which are the only ones I own (Sadly enough). The flatscreen one is called a 'Cintiq'. They come in 1280x1024 & 1024x786 sizes. And actually, the 18" one that runs at 1280x1024 is such a gem that I wouldn't care about it not being able to run higher resolutions. Even the 15" model wasn't bad; it was a little cramped if you're used to working at higher resolutions, but nothing you couldn't get used to. And man, to draw on the screen, is such a productivity gain and so much fun that I frankly don't think you would care about the smaller size!

[Steve_Stafford]

:oops: knucklehead...Intous is it?? was missing the all important ??'s The Cintiq is indeed the ONE I'd like. I might agree with you on resolution but I'd have to test drive it first, can I borrow yours?? When you get it? Should I get the Intous anywhoo? You say you like it? I recall someone in another NG saying they actually put trace over their tablet so it "sounds" good too... :lol:

[hand471037]

I am a total tablet convert, and as such, I'm rather biased, so take this with a gain of salt.

Yes, you should go out and buy one, right now. Your wrist and your producitivty will thank you.

OK, serously tho', you'll wanna try one out prior to purchase. Some people just can't get used to the 'disconnect' in that they are drawing with their hand while watching the screen. But most tablets today come with a mouse and a pen; and the tablet is smart enough to know which one you are using and switch the settings on the fly, so you could ease into it if you find you have problems with it. Some people take to it in a day (me and a couple of people that I introduced it to) and never look back! If you're ever in San Francisco, then I'll totally let you try my non-flatscreen one out. Heck I'll buy ya a drink too. :)

The flatscreens are more intuitive, and could be used by anyone IMHO.

[christopher.zoog51272]

wow, what a fasinating thread this is, great reading!!!

jeffery, i've been planning on an Intous2 tablet for a while now (more for photoshop then revit, but if it works, bonus!) i've been holding out for the 9x12. What size do you use?

Z.

[J-G]

I remember looking at the cintiq screens a year or two ago for use with sketchup. I am actualy really tempted to buy one...of course it would have to be the smaller one since the bigger one is a $2000 difference! What would really be cool (in the future of course) is if you could just write your text in, instead of typing it (I guess somthing like the tablet PCs or Palms). Can you imagine that....writting keynotes in with a pen :lol:

Oh thanks for the links Jeffrey - very cool - I grew up in a machine shop (too dirty so I switched to architecture) and the idea of combining construction with manufacturing methods had always been of interest!

[PeterJ]

I have the Intuos not the Intuos 2 and I like it a great deal. I paid around the equivalent of sixty of your yankee dollars for it second hand and it plugs into the serial port in my case so the mouse remains in the PS2 port for other work (assume this would work with USB mouse and USB tablet too) and its a great system. In fact in place of a mouse I have long been a trackball convert (yet another sub thread springs to life....) so there is no particular desk space issue for me. I would strongly recommend springing for a tablet as a test drive as they are now so inexpensive.

The Cintiq, now that is just wish land for me.

Massie recently got an interesting, albeit brief, write up in the UK professional press over the urban beach scheme but there was no comment on his other work. It's interesting to see it. I'm intrigued at a construction level by how the Big Belt house is insulated. It snows in Montana I think so I assume that the building codes require that you insulate and avoid cold bridging etc.

Finally, if you are really intrigued by Massie's work you should look into rapid prototyping. There are companies out there that laser fire into plastic powder to build up 3D images from a vectore format, such as a CAD file, and you can by one off pieces of your own design. It's not inexpensive but it is a great way to investigate certain architectural ideas with forms you could not cost effectively achieve any other way. Check out www.materialise.com

P

[hand471037]

The 'miracle tank of goo' 3d printer! Heck yeah! I know a toy designer who used to use one of those for prototyping. Now that they are coming down in price it may someday be a reality for us Architects/designers. Just like the fact that five years ago the cheapest CNC mill was still 10 Grand, but now small 'desktop' models can be had for around $2000! I know that as soon as I get some shop space I'll be seriously looking at these!

Jon, I too did some work in a metal shop, doing custom furniture fabrication.

Zoog, the Intous line is the 'nice' line with the extra buttons on the top and higher resolution; But Wacom has a cheaper line of tablets that's a step down that are much cheaper. Here's the link:
http://www.wacom.com/graphire/index.cfm

Also I've found that the smaller tablets work better for me, esp. with CAD. The larger tablets are meant more for artwork and illustration. They are very nice, but are meant to transfer a large motion into a small one on the screen, so that you can be very precise when Photoshoping or Drawing. For CAD work, where you are snapping to everything, that larger size only seems to tire your arms out, for you'll have to move your hand a lot more than with the small tablet. Keep in mind that the default for the tablet is that the tablet size = the size of your monitor, so the larger the tablet, the more 'fine grained' the motion will be and the more you will have to move the pen for the same amount of distance on the screen. There isn't any acceleration, and if you lift the pen at the top left corner and then lower it at the bottom right corner the mouse pointer will jump instantly to that location! So smaller is faster. But you can define a smaller area within the larger tablets that is 'live' then have the tablet autoswitch to it's full size for Photoshop, so if you want a big one it will still be very workable, just don't think that it's required. I've done tons and tons and tons of work on my 4x5 and have never had a problem.

[gregcashen]

I've done tons and tons and tons of work on my 4x5 and have never had a problem.

VERY good info! Thanks Jeffrey.

[hand471037]

I completely wore out two pens on my first tablet. But that was over four years, so I don't feel too bad. :)

[hand471037]

Oh, one more thing; I bought one of the Graphite tablets, the cheaper ones, for my wife to use with photoshop, and it's just as good as the more expensive ones. Actually, it's a little 'dead' and not quite so sensitive, which makes it a little easyer to use, IMHO. So only get the big one if you feel like you need it, the $100 small one is more than workable. Also they come in different colors, so you can match your decor. :roll:

[Steve_Stafford]

Can I get it in puce?...my whole house is puce...gonna try to get my neighborhood to standardize on puce...I love puce (getting punchy)

Seriously, thanks for the info on these here tablets, very helpful, gonna go home and tell my wife I need one of these here tablets right now, Jeffrey says so!

[PeterJ]

I bet when you came home saying 'I gotta have one of Jeffrey's tablets' she said 'here have one of mine, now go lie down'.

[Steve_Stafford]

It was more succinct, NO! I have invoked plan "b", a subversive plan of action that I'd have to....if I told you.

[PeterJ]

Your picture doesn't tell us whether you wear the trousers outside the home.........

I just buy stuff and hope to get away with it.

[Steve_Stafford]

Why, I wear a kilt of course.

[gregcashen]

Just found an old wacom tablet I had lying around and forgot about...taking it to work today to set it up and see if it still works. Looking forward to the release...I have been having back and shoulder pain for about a year now due to sitting at a fricking computer all day long. I'd love to just sketch away!

[hand471037]

A few years ago, when I was nothin' more than a CAD monkey, and was working nothing but CAD and PhotoShop for ten hours a day, everyday, I started developing pain & numbness in my sholder and wrist. Way bad. That stuff has a way of sneaking up on you. And seeing that the ability of my hands directly related to my being able to eat, I started looking for something that wouldn't hurt me like a mouse obvously was. Anyways. I tried a bunch of things, and when I got the tablet, within a week all the pain and soreness and such was gone. And it's never been back. Wacom doesn't talk too much about the pen being a 'cure' for people who are having problems, due to the liability of claiming something as a device that can 'cure' something, they only casually mention that some people have had good results by using a tablet. Also a co-worker of mine, who has much worse problems than I do, wrist-wise, tried my tablet, and then got one for herself, and it also solved a lot of the problems that she was having.

Drawing with a mouse is like drawing with a brick; it's not a natural motion, and while it's good for some tasks it's not good for day-in-day-out use! Also, only some programs support this, but the newer tablets can have a '4D' mouse, where it's a cordless mouse that can detect it's pitch and roll, and translate that into 3D rotations! And the tablet can detect the pen's relitive angle to it's surface, and can take advantage of this too. I've never been able to try this out, for I think it only works with things like Inventor and high-end 3D animation software, and requires a special driver for support (the only thing that does with the tablet).

Good luck trying out that old one!

Wow... this is turning into the longest thread ever... :lol:

[PeterJ]

If you are having an RSI like episode you could experiment with a trackball, that is why I moved over from the mouse. I find it sits in one place and I can tune the chair to whatever is comfortable to my hand's location and it does reduce the shoulder movement significantly.

P

[hand471037]

Trackballs are great, but I could never get the hang of drawing with one. When I was having problems I was doing almost as much photoshop as I was CAD, so the pen worked better for me, and that's just what I've stuck with over the years because it's what I'm used to. But trackballs are cheaper than the tablets too, and might work better for some people. Some people just don't like the tablets, for they are rather different than a mouse.

[PeterJ]

I know just what you mean Jeffrey

For the record....5 button MS Trackball Optical with scroll wheel. I think the last two buttons are programmable but have never gotten that far. Being optical the mouse never sticks.

P

[Steve_Stafford]

I'm taking the initiative and picking up the Graphire2 tonight, looking forward to it. Jeffrey, how do you do zoom and pan with a pen? I was just realizing how much I depend on the middle wheel button.

[patagoniadave]

I know just what you mean Jeffrey

For the record....5 button MS Trackball Optical with scroll wheel. I think the last two buttons are programmable but have never gotten that far. Being optical the mouse never sticks.

P

I have one of those, love it tremendously. The other buttons are very useful (in acad anyway) and I don't know how I ever worked without it. It will stick eventually though, from buildup on the rollers.

[hand471037]

I use the Zoom Window tool via a shortcut, and if you hold down shift+right mouse button it's the same as panning (in 2D) and orbit (in 3D). Since in Revit you can do these in the middle of a command (without causing problems or having to enter in special charaters, ala AutoCAD) I've found the lack of a wheel to not be a problem. At most it's a minor annoyance. The pen has a rocker switch on the side that can be mapped to any two buttons you want; I've got mine set to double-left click & right click (I just tap to left click). You should be able to tie one of those buttons to the middle mouse button if you use it heavly. The only time no wheel is a pain, for me, is in AutoCAD or Web Browsing. Also the Graphies come with a cordless mouse that works on the tablet too, so you could swap between to the two depending on the task. The tablet is smart enough to know which you are using, and to swap it's settings on the fly (heck, you can even make custom profiles for every program on your machine, so that in Revit you've got one button setting, and in other programs a different one).

[brantf]

All I have to say for the walls is MASSING

[Steve_Stafford]

Jeffrey,

Okay, bought the Graphire2. Cool, but you'd think using a pen would be more intuitive? I guess I've been using a mouse for almost 20 years now, my first PC was a MAC :D .

I'm getting used to it though after some modest use. Double clicking is a strange feeling and I've yet to get the hang of or a comfortable way to use the buttons. My hand seems to want to be closer to the bottom and makes the buttons awkward. I'll get there.

Funny, but it seems strange to put the pen down to type, but never gave it thought when "leaving" a mouse to do it. I find myself doing basic typing still holding the pen.

Thanks for posting your thoughts on the tablets, otherwise I probably wouldn't have thought to do it seriously. Nothing like changing a paradigm to alter your perspective. I'm seriously thinking about carting this thing back and forth to work since it's USB and I'd probably end up buying one myself before EyeTee would get me one. I guess I could cry RSS :twisted:

[hand471037]

I've found it best to make the tablet settings so that it's rather 'dead' and not so touchy, while making the front button of the pen either a single or double left click. This will help a lot. Double-clicking by tapping the pen isnt the best way, IMHO. Play with the settings until you find something comfortable to you, and it will help getting used to the pen much easyer. Remeber that the pen doesn't hve to touch the tablet for it to know where it is.

Also I tend to hold the pen between my fingers when I move to type, and switch it back to move the mouse, rather than putting the pen down. works fine unless you're typing out a memo or something. Certain things I'll still use the moouse for, but for CAD it's all pen. :)

[Wes Macaulay]

Steve, check out the config application for the Graphire. You can program all the buttons to work in particular ways for each application - so they function differently depending on the active program.

Make sure you download the latest drivers / config app from Wacom's site, too. These things are truly wonderful.

For those of you who are resource misers: I've disabled the Tablet Service in Windows (Administrative Tools > Services) and I've removed the Windows Startup icon for the Tablet as well. When I want to use the Tablet, turning on the Service in Windows loads the driver only for when you want to use it.