Who utilizes ACA to its fullest capabilities?

[stykface]

General question: Does anyone here utilize the full capabilities of Autodesk Architecture?

The reason I ask is this; I have been working as a HVAC Mechanical Designer for 2-1/2 years now. I'll receive AutoCAD files that were made in ADT or ACA because of the AEC content used within the drawing. The thing is, that I've never had a "complete" Architecture drawing come through, finshed with slab, levels, roofs, spaces, and everything else in between. Its always been a partial plan, with a few AEC doors, and AEC walls/windows, and that's it. Does anyone actually try to take advantage of the full intent of the program?

I understand that some who will reply will say "Revit is where its going" but it seems that ACA is not a 'bad' way to produce effecient CAD drawings. I have opened up a few of the training materal from my AutoCAD MEP training CD's before, and it seems that ACA is capable of a lot actually. Especially when used with the project browser. It automates lots of things it seems.

So am I just wondering about nothing really? Or do people actually use the full extent of the software? I would love to know that I could actually start coordinating with some architects a project of this level.

[dzatto]

I'd say nobody uses the fulllest capabilities of any program.

I use a lot of what ACA can do. I utilize project navigator, and draw most of my buildings using AEC components (walls, roofs, windows, doors, slabs, etc. etc.). All of my details are created using the detail component manager. I also use materials and do renderings in ACA.

That's a lot for one program, but I still don't use it to the fullest. I don't write macros or lisp routines (just never learned how).

[david_peterson]

After seeing what Jay has done (See the Engineered Roof in the Gallery forum) I'd say he is. Being able to export and import between trades is critical.

[dzatto]

Well Jay isn't human! He was built in the autodesk lab with spare cad parts.

[Noahma2]

Well Jay isn't human! He was built in the autodesk lab with spare cad parts.

I would have to agree, I think anyone over at VisionREZ is well..... not human, more robot than anything else, and really super friendly


I have been working at transitioning our office into ACA or (VisionREZ) we do about 95% residential work, there is way too much built into this program to use it ALL in a residential application. But I have us set up to use the majority of it.

as soon as things turn around a bit in the industry, I can defiantly see us implementing more. (upgrade fundage got cut)

[H-Angus]

I guess what we do is use the bits which are useful to us. Over the years I've tried to learn either everything the programme is capable of, or at least learn to have an understanding of what it can do and then pick and choose which bits to implement.

The bits that we do use differ for each job, it depends what information I need to convey, using ACA as a tool (like pen & paper is) to do a job rather than using a job to do what ACA can do.

An issue which has often arisen is where my users have gone to town on modeling things which are never shown on drawing sheets, they get carried away with what ACA can do rather than what the job requires, particularly when modeling parts of an existing building which isn't being touched, for example spending a day and a half creating a complex existing roof which isn't being changed or even shown.

Another variable is how much are we charging and what work have we quoted for, if it's a small job that we aren't charging much for, I've got no problem with using regular Acad objects about the place if it's quicker/easier and I know it's unlikely to change.

Horses for courses. Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should.

[neje]

I don't think anyone would ever 'fully utilise' any program as it's usually built for a wide audience and most would only need a portion of the program anyway. I no longer do CD's so I don't get into the scheduling, detail manager, etc but I do model the building enough to present a DA. It's a shame that many do not know how to create elevations that don't need to be exploded etc. Lack of training.

The all time problem with ACA is it's based on Autocad and you can fall back to 2d if you get stuck. But the great advantage of ACA is you can fall back to Autocad to get the job done and out the door if you have to.

The more I understand about ACA the more I like it.

Oh I do use spaces, scheduling and tags for subdivision layouts.

Nathan
www.ausaca.blogspot.com

[Chuckyd67]

We are moving to total 3D, if we ever get any more work. That being said, the architectural group is generating "smart" floor plans that also generate schedules, elevations, and buidling sections. We also use the 3D model to create renderings.

The one big feature we avoid is project navigator due to its causing too much of a drag on all users. The concept of PN is great, but for two or more concurrent users, the whole system drops to a crawl.

[dhallett]

Just a comment that although we generally use most of the modeling capabilities of ACA for our work, we don't usually export the whole model to our consultants. We find it just confuse them because they don't have the automations we have set up to manage the displays etc. Most of them use vanilla Autocad anyway.

[H-Angus]

Just a comment that although we generally use most of the modeling capabilities of ACA for our work, we don't usually export the whole model to our consultants. We find it just confuse them because they don't have the automations we have set up to manage the displays etc. Most of them use vanilla Autocad anyway.

That's pretty much the same for us, we generally end up being requested to export to Autocad when sending to other design consultants. We are starting to send things across in dwf these days though.