See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

  1. #11
    Certified AUGI Addict jaberwok's Avatar
    Join Date
    2000-12
    Location
    0,0,0 The Origin
    Posts
    8,570
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    Interesting overall but you clearly misunderstand AutoDesk's use of the word "vertical" (which has nothing to do with "vertex").
    A vertical product is simply one which is built on a foundation which is AutoCAD.
    AutoCAD is a general-purpose programme; the vertical products use the tools in it and build additional tools on top.
    AutoCAD is still based on its original design concept from 30 years ago and, despite one complete rewrite (but not redesign) and many releases featuring additional tools, it will never be able to do many of the things that are basic to Revit and Inventor which come from completely separate code bases.
    So, decide what you need to do and pick the appropriate software; we are not yet in a position to pick and mix features from different products.

  2. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    2008-08
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    42
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    jaberwok -- cool of you to show up!! No, i do understand how they use vertical...and my description covers what you have said...perhaps a bit more playfully but never the less the understanding is mutual.

    BTW how do you like the great idea I'm promoting??? Doesn’t sound like you quite get it. Its so obivous to me that I wonder why its not yet to others how perfect it would be for AutoCAD to do it….things that make me go "hhhhmmmmm???"

    And are you involved directly with Autodesk? Your comment sounds like you may be involved in determining the limits of the code for the kind of functionality I am wishing for...do tell, thanks! d.
    Last edited by daniel.191403; 2009-07-25 at 01:22 AM.

  3. #13
    Certified AUGI Addict jaberwok's Avatar
    Join Date
    2000-12
    Location
    0,0,0 The Origin
    Posts
    8,570
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    Hi Daniel.
    Me, work for AutoDesk -
    I'm not in architecture, I don't use schedules but I found your writing interesting.
    Your argument that certain functions are easily achieved in some software but harder to achieve in others reminds me of the many AutoCAD LT users who say "I really, really need this one feature that is in full acad to be added to LT". If ADesk acted on all those requests, LT would soon be exactly the same as full acad and they would no longer want to sell it at a reduced price.
    Notice I say "want to sell" not "be able to sell". The feature lists of their various products depend at least as much on marketing strategy as on technical ability. So, like I said, pick the software that does what you need it to do.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    2008-08
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    42
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    Jaberwok -- Thanks for the clarification....uummmm...yeah, okay, so let me see if I can work through our two separate lines of thought: I get your point, but you might just see that it’s not really applicable in this instance. Your response misappropriates a line of thinking and doesn't quit match up to the circumstances of this topic, but I do understand the logic of your thinking.

    If you knew more about the work of architecture and you knew that schedules are an integral part of every project, sort of like drawing window are, you would understand that 'my improvement idea' is of a different category then something like adding this or that feature to a ‘vertical’ product to justify its cost or description as a vertical product.

    Your line of thinking also misses the target because the programs that have a version of 'my idea', Revit & ACA, are not just more robust but in fact are radically different kinds of software with hughly different workflow methodologies then the approach to designing with AC. If one was to choose their software by listing a collection of tools/functions they prefer….well this would be putting the cart ahead of the horse. ‘Paradigm’ selection is a vastly more important criterion for selecting software….and then of course usability and creativity needs….and also keep in mind this conversation flows from the P.O.V. of architectural design, not other design disciplines.

    So, by your line of reasoning linked to the topic of this thread, it requires that in choosing this singular functional robustness [auto scheduling] one must choose a vastly different paradigms then then AC.

    Not cool. Not cool for veryvery many reason dude.

    AC is the pinnacle of ITS paradigm in the Autodesk catalogue for architectural design. ACA having AC as its ‘internal combustion engine’ is not actually a vertical option since its drive train and gear box and suspension and cooling system is quite different then is ACs, and so it drives the process of design in an altogether different way….its far from apple to apples, but more like apples to walnuts.

    When you think about verticality in a product line as you move up in robustness there typically is not a completely separate manual to learn the program….just added pages to the base manual.

    Furthermore, as you read through the whole thread again [or for the first time] you will see that the underlying capabilities needed for this "new idea" is if not entirely already in AC is certainly well established so that the "newness" is not the insertion of an entirely added feature set, but a coalescing of current cumbersome capabilities into a smooth streamlined user friendly ‘less-steps-to-accomplish’ the same kinda task sort of a thing – which is precisely how all Autodesk’s offerings often get improved over time. They build on the foundation which has already been laid within the program.

    :-O
    Last edited by daniel.191403; 2009-07-25 at 05:58 PM.

  5. #15
    Certified AUGI Addict jaberwok's Avatar
    Join Date
    2000-12
    Location
    0,0,0 The Origin
    Posts
    8,570
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    I think I see the point alright.
    You want a feature/function/workflow that is specific to architectural use to be built into a general purpose programme as well as into the architure-specific programmes that are available.
    That is a simple paraphrasing of your words.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    2008-08
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    42
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    You got it! Absolutely right…well done!! Especially because the ‘general purpose’ of the software is to design objects which require scheduling as a normal part of the work flow.

    BTW if you are trying to suggest that AC is not specifically designed for the practice of designing buildings in mind you might just drop a suggestion note in the TO DO BOX at Autodesk to let them know they better change the target audience of their ad campaigns….and then pass a memo on to their tutorials, manual designers, user groups, tech support site, R&D team.....bloggers, block creators, and fellow behemoth firms [cash cows for autodesk] using the software for populating the world with buildings. Just a thought!

    But all sarcasm aside, due to the fact that i well understand that part of the beauty of the program is that it targets more then one industry -- industries which have overlapping needs -- I understand your point of view….especially since you view the software from the side of the hill which in not about architecture. But isn’t it nice that such a product has the power and flexibility to be used in a broad range of industries? Seems like a good business decision by Autodesk to maximize their impact in the world of 'Design/build/make /manufactor/invent' = draw. After all that’s all my idea would do for them...support their purpose. Just trying to support the team, here.

    Which makes me wonder what motivated you to follow this thread? You seem to want to box in AC instead of improve it? Or you seem to want to take a kinda of 'just say no stance.' If the original thread topic didn't appeal to you why join in?

    And also do realize 'my idea' would serve all communities not just building designers....the 'auto schedule' functionality would work for anything that needs scheduling, or listing, or indexing, or organizing or what ever it is others do when they have multiple parts of similar kinds which get categorized and formatted in rows & columns to be placed on sheets. All comers are welcomed to use it.

    d.
    Last edited by daniel.191403; 2009-07-26 at 12:17 AM.

  7. #17
    Certifiable AUGI Addict
    Join Date
    2015-11
    Location
    Jo'burg SA
    Posts
    4,512
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    Well, I'm back ... and no I don't work for either ADesk or AUGI. My surmises are simply from personal experience & the ability to think as if I'm one of the ADesk decision makers (sneaking a toe into one of their shoes theoretically).

    I think we all may be talking in circles around each other. ACad is definitely only the base product on which ADesk builds the rest (as jaberwok states), it's not gong to have any discipline specific tools. For that you need the vertical specific to your industry, or at the very least an add-on to give you the required new tools.

    You may see ACad as the "internal combustion engine" inside ACA. Well, yes, that's exactly what it is - if you look at it from ADesk's point of view (not the user's). ACad can be viewed as you basic no frills car, it has a body, seats, doors, wheels, an engine & a gearbox. If you want AC, GPS, Heated seats, Electric windows, a roof light, etc. then you buy the luxury version - which now has some new buttons on the dash even replacing old stuff like a choke. If you want to go off-road with it, you look at the version which has 4 wheel drive, a diflock, raised suspension, etc - now you've got a 2nd gear lever. For all the extras you're going to pay though, and some of the extras are going to take some getting used to. The manufacturer is not going to place all those extras into the base model, it would make no commercial sense to do so, and some of these simply need new ways of operation which makes for more complex user interaction. The difference between a vertical from ADesk and some add-ons can be viewed as a packaged model with extras, as opposed to the base model with one or two after market affixes.

    Now to get to your idea of an architect drawing a window. That you only do in ACA or Revit. In straight ACad you draw a bunch of unrelated lines, they may be related in your mind but AC has no idea what they really mean. You may make them into a block, but AC now only knows that these are grouped together & could be reused somewhere else. When you look at ACA, the walls, windows, doors, etc. are all made with blocks. ACA extends these block to have properties which define their behavior, eg. if you place one of the window blocks on top of the wall, it cuts the wall lines. ACad won't do this for you, you need to use something like the trim command to accomplish the same.

    Similarly data extract is a basic system for getting the properties, attributes & parameters of graphical entities (lines, circles, arcs, poly lines, blocks, etc.) to a textual list (table). It does not know what a window schedule is, it does not know even that the door drawn inside the wall is linked with a reference tag to a schedule. All it knows is what the user (after tedious setting up) told it: "I want block name such and such extracted, showing these attributes, sorted on this one, and calculate some values for me". It has no "intelligence", not even the slightly less non-intelligent ACA / Revit truly has this intelligence. The program will only perform what its told to by a combination of what the programmer made and what the user input was.

    You should know yourself that Arch Schedules have no real standard. You get the one architect who shows a door type per A3 sheet with all the door position numbers on that same sheet. Then you have the guy who uses a compilation sheet, linking the door position number to a leaf type, frame type, architrave type, etc. Then you get both of these blokes either adding the ironmongery into this schedule, or having a separate schedule. And then, just to be funny ???, you get those using a position number which is simply incremented, while others group them per floor/building, and then some grouping them per room. So even ACA / Revit won't be able to cater for all the variances. And that's only door (true maybe the most involved schedule but..) what about windows, moldings, sanitary ware, finishes, etc. Do you give them position numbers on plan, or simply type references? What about the colors, do they form part of your finishing schedule or do you have a separate decoration schedule? What do you do about shopfronts, are they doors or are they windows, if they're doors do you combine the sidelights & fanlights as part of the door or as separate windows, if they're windows how do you handle the ironmongery (especially if your windows are typed and not positioned). Or do you have a separate schedule for shopfronts?

    This is one aspect of Architecture only, other disciplines have similar and different aspects as well (e.g. a structural engineer's bending schedule works totally different to this). So any program wanting to cover all fields would have a choice of 3 options:
    1. Cater for all possibilities of all disciplines .... yeah right that's going to happen!
    2. Have a base program only catering for the common stuff, then add extensions so the user can buy the extensions which he wants.
    3. Create separate programs for each
    ADesk mixes and matches between 2 & 3. An add-on I'd place fully inside 2, while a vertical starts bordering on 3, while something like Revit is more inside 3 than 2, although the difference between Revit Arch, Mech & MEP is also rather in the added tools than the basic program - i.e. going towards 2 again. 3dStudio is firmly inside 3.

    So, if you want a scheduling prog that does exactly what you require and easily, then you get the one which is designed for your scenario, i.e. buy ACA or Revit. Or you change the basic prog to suit by either buying an add-on, or creating one yourself.

    The idea behind ACad and its verticals is similar to the phrase Worse is Better. Follow the link, the WikiPedia article explains better than I can (also check the reference "Worse is Better is Worse"). "Un"fortunately, ADesk is skewing from this idea slightly buy adding some functionality to the base product coming from the verticals (eg. the new constraints from Inventor inside basic 2010) - or maybe not, that's the premise behind Worse is Better: "Fix & make better the program at a later stage". They (probably - again my surmise) think that if some tool can be used on all disciplines, then add it to the base product. Unfortunately scheduling doesn't scale well with this idea, since there's simply too much variance ... the data extract is very close to being the most common part of all scheduling, while keeping it "simplistic" ... here simplistic means the programmer designed it simple for him. A simple program for a user is usually a very complex thing to create, and thus makes for difficult implementation of the "Right Thing" (or so called MIT approach). The data extract is a (somewhat) example of the Worse is Better approach: give as little as necessary functionality, while making the implementation as simple as possible, if needed completeness and then correctness may be sacrificed.

    I've seen (in the last decade and more) ever more programs following this approach ... the reason behind it? It's quicker to get the program working and sold to the public (IMHO), thereafter the users are glad when extra functionality or correctness or completeness is added at a later stage ... and thus more revenue can be collected. With the MIT approach the program needs to be as complete, correct & simple to use as possible ... implementation time takes a back seat. So here you find a absolutely "perfect" program coming out several years after your competitors have already sold inferior products. At the time you can finally sell yours, their bug fixes have nearly gotten to where you aimed for (or may even have surpassed yours) ... but they've made profit in the meantime, while you had no revenue at all.

    So to sum up, for you the user you've got 4 choices:
    1. Live with it as is and do everything manually ... maybe wait until ADesk does implement a better version of Data Extract before you start using it.
    2. Use Data Extract now as it is and do some manual adjustments to compensate for its shortcomings. Live with the shortcoming you can't change without loosing functionality, i.e. design your schedules so they work well with Data Extract (easy to say isn't it?)
    3. Search for & buy a 3rd party add-on which will make this for you ... I class making the add-on yourself here as well, it's cheaper in cash terms, but much more expensive on time. Although if you do this yourself (or get someone to do it for you) you obtain a product so closely relevant to what you wanted as to be near-perfect ... and maybe you could then sell it on ... but that's another story!
    4. Use the vertical product from ADesk which suits your needs best ... in which case you're going to have to start drawing to suit the product instead of simply drawing linework as you're used to. Or even look for a competing product which provides these with an "easier" interface.

  8. #18
    Certifiable AUGI Addict
    Join Date
    2015-11
    Location
    Jo'burg SA
    Posts
    4,512
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    Quote Originally Posted by daniel.191403 View Post
    Especially because the ‘general purpose’ of the software is to design objects which require scheduling as a normal part of the work flow.
    Nope, not all design needs scheduling, some just place the notes on the technical drawings and have no concept of scheduling at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by daniel.191403 View Post
    BTW if you are trying to suggest that AC is not specifically designed for the practice of designing buildings in mind
    That's exactly what ACAD (without any add-on or vertical is). It's noting more than an electronic pencil for use with any design you would like to put it to use with. ACad is not meant for building design, mechanical design, electronic design, or anything you could think of. It's meant for all of it, with only the very basic common design tools implemented. The verticals extend this so it is now "meant" for use with that specific branch of design.

    If you're (me as well) using ACad stright off the cuff for building design, then it's you using it for that. It doesn't mean it's been made to do so. ACad's been a concept since the erly 80's (or is that 70's ... will have to look it up). Thus it's basic criteria was: "What do drafters do when they create drawings?" Not how should it be to make it all automatic. It works on the principle of a drawing board, you draw lines & arcs, erase some of it and that's it. Later they added layers (as if you draw on several translucent sheets), then the concept of blocks (reusable cepia parts). So ACad grew from the drawing board ... for scheduling it's reached a bottle neck. The drawing board was also simply a bunch of lines, the beholder gave it a meaning, not the paper. So the concept behind acad needed to change to allow for BIM-like functionality ... either you draw "smart" objects like in Revit or ACA, or you make them smart like with the add-on I'm creating. Both of which makes for some new way of doing things to a greater or lesser extent, but it won't simply be as it was continued & improved ... you can only kick an old dog so many times ... then it's dead and kicking won't help anymore. (Sorry that's a really BAD metaphor)
    Last edited by irneb; 2009-07-26 at 07:07 PM.

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    2008-08
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    42
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    Wow, nice, IRNEB, bravo for your commitment to this dialogue!! I can see you‘ve been busy in your time away. And now that you’re back you’ve provided some more fun to the tread….this is great!! Thanks.

    So let’s get right into it and better set aside some time to go through it all, because you have thrown out quite a lot to chew on, most of which is not very digestible with out some pepto bismo!! lol

    In an effort to cover it all I will DATA extract some of the attributes of your writing for scheduling my responses, hehehehe…but will rely on short version quoting to keep the thinking process in neatly formatted columns and rows, a sort of xReferencing of your ideas with the Wipe Out tool for expediency sake. So here we go:

    IRNEB: “…ACad is definitely only the base product on which ADesk builds the rest (as jaberwok states), it's not gong to have any discipline specific tools. For that you need the vertical specific to your industry….”

    DANIEL: I couldn’t disagree more, though I understand the origins of this notion having some relative accuracy to it. AC has been Autodesk’s primary flagship software for the building design profession, with tons of specific tools for that purpose, for I don’t know lets say close to 30 years now. Due to advances in computer science/technology, BIM, [which actually started back in the seventies] and the capacity for commercial software companies like Autodesk to FINALLY be able to take advantage of those advancements an entirely new kind of product began to emerge probably about 8-10 years ago, though not being a journalist don’t hold me to that exact number. This opened the door for more targeted software because the goal of this new BIM technology way back in the day was in response to architectural industry specific needs, and primarily issues of coordination and documentation. Or at least the mathematicians who created BIM saw this as a perfect location to place their brainchild. But in the meantime AC continued its march towards supremacy in the market place for building design, as well as other industries too.

    So, then, this leads me to ask you how was AC regarded before Revit & ADT? Was it vertically hampered then? And after you answer that, how long has AC been the software of choice for the building industry [which is a hint on how to answer the first question and cued up quite nicely in the paragraph above]? Now now, be honest.

    Calling AC a “base product” is a convenient linguistic marketing position in order to provide some marketing leverage for the advancement of a newer technology [Revit], but doing so betrays the history of the software and how it was marketed for several decades, and even still today – even though the notion of verticality is being used by Autodesk they are a little bit between a rock and another rock on this one as they are trying really really super duper hard to advance Revit in the market place. I don’t accept this marketing concept as valid due to the lack of symmetry between the products. It a ploy, not a reality.

    However, since this notion of verticality is a foundational pillar of your argument [supported in some part by the current marketing tools by Autodesk as I’ve acknowledged] and which props up much of your point of view, we will have to agree to disagree about it; beyond that I can say that this ‘base/vertical’ labeling issue is really not a relevant position to take in terms of evaluating the merit of the ‘idea’ which started this tread…which of course is my brilliant idea which you have yet to comment directly on.

    cont...

  10. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    2008-08
    Location
    los angeles
    Posts
    42
    Login to Give a bone
    0

    Default Re: Creating Schedules in AutoCad

    IRNEB: ‘…if you look at it from ADesk's point of view…”

    DANIEL: If you don’t work for Autodesk why then do you take up the position of trying to answer for them? Why not let them answer for themselves? By your doing this you bring into our conversation heresy and conjecture [on the mark or not] as another essential pillar to your argument instead of focusing on the merits of the ‘idea’ of the thread. So I’ll ask you the same question you’ve yet to answer: Would you use ‘it’ if it was made available? I find it very intriguing that both you and JW place your focus where you do….instead of on the subject itself. It gives the impression you are trying to defend something under attack. Hhhhmmmmm?

    IRNEB: “…ACad can be viewed as your basic no frills car…”

    DANIEL: Gee wiz, how does one come to make this determination…relegating AC to being a Gremlin…remember those funny cars? This is a downgrading act which does create a hierarchy of value in a linear trajectory from LT to Revit...this is perhaps a languaging tool best used by the PR folks at Autodesk. Users may have other opnions about this, however, and often state this loud and clear. Still the concept would have better legs if the products did have an actual through-line which follows increasing robustness as you move up in the fleet of offerings; but this is not the case. If this is troubling for you to accept then work with all three programs, if you have not, and you will see they sit side by side at best despite all the glorified hoopla surrounding Revit and the faint applause for ADT/ACA.

    AC, regardless of ADT & Revit, is a very robust powerful design too, and many would argue a much better design tool then the newer options; it is feature packed and highly competitive in the general market and purposed built for designing buildings and other related industries. Bravo!! Revit and ADT have not replaced it despite the heavy marketing push. Again, I think this shift in attitude about AC arose only because of the presence of this newer technology which is more specifically targeted and seductively advertised. This attitude shift is not supportable by any other criteria other then marketing and so is flawed. It’s a little bit of the ‘emperor isn’t wearing any cloths’ story.

    If you want some more insight into this just read one of the many article dealing with the fall out of this reality: This months AEC Edge on-line magazine, and AUGI publication: http://www.digitaleditiononline.com/...ation/?i=17799 [see page 27]
    I’ve actually been in contact with both the author of the article and editor of the magazine; they requested I write on article on the subject of Revit and why it so hard to learn for so many – I’m still considering their offer. So when I think metaphorically of vertical and luxury Revit does not come to mind – this leads me nicely into the next bit of data extraction:

    IRNEB: “then you buy the luxury version”

    DANIEL: What is the luxury version of AC? If you think Revit or ADT is a luxury version you are mistaken. I already know how you feel about ADT/ACA…it sucks to paraphrase & embellish your words. But this is entirely beside the point, which I’ve made very clear several times: Both Revit & ACA despite their target markets & associated marketing campaigns are, lets say it with me all together now, “different kinds of software entirely” and not simply luxury version of AC. This is point for some reason you and JW want to use as the basis for your position. It’s a flawed position. I would agree with it if Revit & ACA were indeed value added creatures via increased bells & whistle luxury items above that found in AC, to use those metaphors once again…but looking at it in a rigorous way this kind of statement can not be supported by the reality of what they are. Unless you wish to have a semantically based argument orbiting around positions rather than a real discussion which focuses on the comparison of all three software options in this conversation – which by the way is not the original subject of this thread – then lets get to the real point of this thread….the wonderful new tool I am proposing!!

    cont....
    Last edited by daniel.191403; 2009-07-27 at 01:05 AM.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MP318-4: Creating Electrical Panel Schedules in AutoCAD MEP
    By Autodesk University in forum MEP Design and Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2014-12-01, 03:38 AM
  2. Creating Schedules
    By mwalker.87963 in forum Revit MEP - General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2009-11-17, 08:24 PM
  3. Creating a new category in schedules
    By Imwezal in forum Revit MEP - General
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2009-10-14, 05:24 PM
  4. Creating lintel schedules
    By khanson-3b in forum Revit Structure - General
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2007-02-26, 02:02 PM
  5. Creating schedules
    By pangell in forum ACA General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2005-12-07, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •