Just one question I may regret asking, but I'm well aware that 3D drawings are much more usable than 2D and accept the fact; heck I live it.
What if you're in the situation where you're doing simple site plans, and your CAD tech's don't know how to manipulate or use a 3D drawing.
Doesn't happen here. First we don't have but a couple "CAD Tech's" we use "designers" and engineers, and they are quite skilled at what we do.
Right, same here, but we're not talking about your house, but more "in general"
Oh, your question was "What if
you're..." I don't know what "you" do. My position remains that it is a bad idea to step on an accurate 3D model.
Maybe it's just for a drainage analysis... whatever...
Drainage analysis requires much of the 3D data contained in the file to calculate flow rates volumes and velocities.
That's your prefered method, sure, but many civil engineers are fine seeing a the footprint, eave heights, and roof slopes, no matter how that information is conveyed. (There may be other details to it, I'm just going off what I logically think the important numbers are off the drawings we typically send our civil guys for such things)
We did it a 2D method for decades, it is quite doable. Just takes a lot longer and requires more input. See everyone posting here so far is still thinking with 2D methods even if they work 3D, "Numbers on a drawing". I can do drainage analysis on our sites before we ever cut the first drawing or place the first "number" as text anywhere.
What's wrong with taking your model, flattening it, cleaning it up a bit, and pushin' out the drawing.
You mean, other than breaking the 3D data we've invested time and money placing in the file and making a much less usable file out of it? Nothing I guess.
There are situations where people don't know how to use a 3D drawing, and that does not make them any less successful of a CAD tech or designer or engineer than anyone else.
It may not, but they won't work here very long without becoming proficient in 3D.
Right... "here" (your house) but not "in general" which is the topic at hand. The very existence of the tool.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my topic has always been the advisability of stepping on a 3D model. If you step on an accurate 3D model you reduce its usefulness, even if YOU aren't the one using the data. If you step on an inaccurate file, you still have an inaccurate file, only flat.
This LSP routine has as valid a place in someone's arsenal of tools as any routines in yours.
As does exploding dimensions. We've seen folks post on this very forum, what they consider are very valid reasons for exploding dims.
So this file doesn't work for -you-?
The topic isn't whether it works for you, Randy, you were challenging the very existence of the tool, which is why people are getting argumentative.
Oh I understand that very well. Any time any one challenges the status quo, people get uncomfortable. Do it with my sweet style, and people froth at the mouth.
I have two clear simple questions that might clear up the need to argue further:
1) Are you saying this tool should not be used, ever, or just not be used on your files or in your house?
Yes, I'm saying on an accurate 3D it should never be used. I question its use on an inaccurate model, but if others wish to rely on the other two-thirds being accurate, then carry on (I think I've said that six or eight times now.)
2) Do you dispute that other companies in other fields of work can quite successfully
Never have. We were quite successful using number two pencils on vellum for quite some time. Some others are quite successful using only 2D CAD, and still others are very successful using other 3D tools.
