TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: rktect3j on May 06, 2005, 04:28:57 PM
-
Somebody posted this on another site and I thought you guys might have some information for him.
I use Autocad (2005) and its inefficiency has, for a long time, frustrated me. To use an example, If I alter a window's size, I have to update the plan, elevation, section, interior elevation and the window schedule. And as far as Autocad is concerned I'm not drawing a window at all- but instead just a group of colored lines.
I'm wondering if anyone out there has found a CAD program with built-in architectural intelligence- a program which you can tell to change a window and it understands you and updates every drawing for you. I know that some programs claim to do this- but does it really work in practice? I've used and older version of Archicad and while it claimed to be able to cut sections automatically, it did not actually generate anything close to a presentation quality drawing. Archicad had some nice architectural-specific parametric features but basically it wasn't a whole lot better than Autocad
I know the world has progressed far enough technologically for the program I'm looking for- but my fear is that nobody has created it yet. We architects have too much education to be spending such a large percentage of our time doing menial CAD monkey tasks. Imagine how much more effort we could put into actual design (or going to the beach) if we had 'smart programs' that did the menial work for us.
Is Architectural Desktop any better than Autocad? Is there ANY program out there that would allow us to shift the majority of our time and labor to tasks that actually relate to architecture and not just pushing a mouse around? Thanks.
I decided to add this as my disclaimer. The views of the original poster about cad monkeys and mouse pushers are not an accurate depiction of others involved in the field of architecture and should not be taken as such.
-
I don't use, or haven't ever, but isn't Revit just what the doctor ordered?
-
dunno the guy myself, but he's missed the boat with autocad. it's only "colored lines' because that's all he's using it for. for those of us using it to a deeper level, it does exactly what he wishes it would do. when i change a window, it changes in all views, because all the views are looking at the same window, not a facsimile of one.
-
My original response to him was basically, "so you want to draw a line and have the computer generate a 3d model of a building allowing for all plans, elevations, sections, etc as well as cost takeoffs, estimates, ordering and scheduling of material drop off. So if we have this what exactly is it that we get paid to do?"
-
Sorry if anyone here got offended. I have put a disclaimer on the original thread.
-
the guy has yet to plumb the depths of the tool, has only just scratched the surface, and yet thinks the tool is where his inefficiencies lie. a swing and a miss.
-
go back to drafting by hand and see how much time you have for the beach....
-
The clown is using plain AutoCad and bitchin'...knowing full well that there must be some purpose for Arch Desktop to be around. What an idiot!! The tools are there but he doesn't know how to use them, so AutoCad sucks? Yeah, something sucks around here , but it ain't the software.
-
Hey try to be a little bit civil. I posted a link for him to follow over here. He asked even though I told him his post was being eaten alive. He might check in on monday to see if any answers are forth coming. If it doesn't look too much like a lynch mob he might join up and post some questions for you. Maybe you can educate him and all us other bad evil architect types on the intricasies of autocad as it seems you are so smart and know it all.
-
Took care of mine. Slight misunderstanding as to what you were trying to say. :oops:
-
My point is that he displayed his foolishness by complaining about a tool that he did not know how to use not functioning properly. It's the tool, not the user? When I bowl a bad game (this happens with great regularity) I do not blame my bowling ball.
The big problem is that his attitude is SO rampant among college graduate experts. Us CAD Monkeys get quite tired of that attitude. Perhaps he just needs a new cad monkey. (The point of the preceeding statement is that most of us PROFESSIONAL DRAFTERS find that terminology VERY offensive.)
-
Revit is the answer he seeks.
That is one nifty package.
-
My point is that he displayed his foolishness by complaining about a tool that he did not know how to use not functioning properly. It's the tool, not the user? When I bowl a bad game (this happens with great regularity) I do not blame my bowling ball.
The big problem is that his attitude is SO rampant among college graduate experts. Us CAD Monkeys get quite tired of that attitude. Perhaps he just needs a new cad monkey. (The point of the preceeding statement is that most of us PROFESSIONAL DRAFTERS find that terminology VERY offensive.)
I understand completely and have nothing but respect for the people who know how to make it all work and the end users as well. All our jobs end up creating the whole. Some people just lose sight of it or don't realize other ends of the machine. I think we might all work better in the end if we try to help and understand each other a bit more. We can all sit here and complain, bitccch, moan and groan about it or we can try to fix it. If everyone keeps alienating other groups of professionals the problem will only get worse. As well , if any specific group believes themselves to be better then other professionals or that certain types of tasks are beneath him he will surely go thru his career by taking the long, hard road. It is to his benifit to understand everything around him.
-
I have found that ADT presents a steep learning curve coming from using the plain AutoCad. It looks really interesting and I imagine it could do everything he seems to need, but I think that there would be a lot of up-front work to get it to that point. I learn a little bit each day, but with trying to maintain the current workloads and deadlines, I haven't been able to grasp the program for its total purpose. If he had enough dedicated time to train on the software, I think it would serve his needs. As far as his comments about Cad monkeys, I would just pay no attention to it. I've worked for engineers and architects and the perception that many, not all, of these individuals have plays well with this comment. I just find it amusing when one of these individuals needs help, they come to the Cad monkeys with their questions. :D
-
That's why Revit is the answer. It takes an entirely different approach to 'designing' and 'constructing' architecturally, on screen, with a mouse and keyboard than does ADT.
I could sit my wife, with no CAD experience at all, in front of ADT and have her confused and bewildered in no time flat... no matter how simple I tried to make it seem.
I could sit her in front of Revit and, whithin a few minutes, have her designing her dream home and producing construction plans.
-
ADT or Revit would be the way to go. I'd say ADT, but that's because I've used it and that makes me biased to it. Just get Paul Aubin's book. You can catch PA at cadalyst forums or on his website, www.paulaubin.com
-
What about 'SoftPlan' & 'Chief Architect'?
I haven't used them but from what I read they are dedicated to just housing designs.
And are more like ADT.
-
What about 'SoftPlan'...
Wow, that brings me back. I used Softplan back in high school and I remember it being a very good program at that time. It would be worth your while to look it up! :)
-
What about 'SoftPlan' & 'Chief Architect'?
My late uncle used to swear by Chief Architect. His problem was compatibility with clients who used AutoCAD.
-
i think compatibility has been an issue with both programs.
But I think they both let you create intelligent drawings so you can extract
material list & the list are updated when you change a component.
They also claim to be able to create elevations, perspective, renderings,
sections etc from the plan view created.
The catch as i see it is the front end work of setting up the walls, doors,
windows etc to your specifications. Once done it saves a lot of time.
The catch is when you want to step outside the box with something the programmers
did not set it up to do. You will then fight the program to create your object.
Also if you want to use a new object like a different window, you will have to
create that object in detail for it to be a usable smart object.
That's just my take and not from real knowledge of the programs.
Perhaps someone has used one of them recently and can enlighten us.
-
I recall my first CAD system with great fondness.
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/mp/etchasketch.png)
-
Yes, you can send him off to Revit or Inventor or ADT or some other "vertcal" product, but he wil still remain ignorant of the depth of the tool he has in hands right now.
I've been using plain AutoCAD for over 20 years, and learn something new about it every day. If your guy is just making colored lines with it, he's missed the boat entirely.
THIS (http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/cadaver/plant-01.jpg?nossi=1) is what plain AutoCAD can do with the right "CAD Monkey" at the helm. If all he's getting is colored lines, the fault is NOT the tool, maybe he needs to look beyond "cad monkeys".
-
Of course, that's why I sent the links to the books that would teach him how to use ADT. They're very good books and Paul is a really nice guy.
-
I am new here so what i see on this site is scary enough not to ask questions.
I have been schooled by different pepole and now being schooled by drafting instructors and they say they are still learning new commands. is this a place you can ask question or is it better to go to a different site in the swamp?
-
... is this a place you can ask question or is it better to go to a different site in the swamp?
Ask away, just don't feed the gators. :)
-
I am new here so what i see on this site is scary enough not to ask questions.
Don't be scared. You're just seeing the passion some folks have for their craft. It's a good thing -- the folks that might scare you initially might be the very folks who can help you the most.
PS: Welcome aboard scndyr, where are ya from?
-
is this a place you can ask question or is it better to go to a different site in the swamp?
I am also new here and this crew is the best :D :cheesy: - in just a few months they have helped me overcome at least 2 major issues
I am an (wait for the groan) interior designer- self taught on CAD, as long as you can appreciate the humour--these guys normally only bash each other- you wont be bashed until you know them well enough to bash back and they always apologize if they think they crossed a line....
-
I am new here so what i see on this site is scary enough not to ask questions.
I have been schooled by different pepole and now being schooled by drafting instructors and they say they are still learning new commands. is this a place you can ask question or is it better to go to a different site in the swamp?
CAD General (where you are now) is the perfect place to ask questions of nearly any kind. If there is another Swamp forum that may have a better answers, or be better suited to your question, we'll let you know, and a moderator may move your post to that forum. So ask away.
BTW, go HERE (http://www.theswamp.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39&start=650) and introduce yourself. We like to know a little something about our members... well some of them anyway... :wink:
-
I grant scndyr a 30 day moritorium on harassment . No one is allowed any zingers for the next 30 days. (After that, his big ole butt is fair game!!)
-
It's frightening how often you use the word 'butt'. Freud would truly have a picnic with yours.
-
strange that you should notice.......sweetie
-
Hey everyone,
Great site you have here- I think I'm going to learn a lot from it.
I'm the one who wrote the original post in this thread. First off, let me apologize if I offended anyone with the term 'Cad monkey.' I use the term with great affection as I consider myself to be one.
The point of my post might not be entirely clear, removed from its original context, so let me try to explain:
I have huge appreciation for what computers can do for us- I'm honestly not sure if I would have entered the field of architecture if hand drafting were our only option. I get frustrated however because I know that CAD could do so much more than it does currently. As some have suggested, my situation could quickly be ameliorated if I knew even half of what Autocad has to offer. This is true to an extent because I'm pretty poor at comprehending anything found in a software manual and there is nobody at my small firm who is even close to mastering the program who could seve as my CAD mentor. I have however taken classes in Microstation and have used Archicad at a previous job so I am pretty experienced in 3D rendering and other more advanced CAD applications. I have even used Autocad to do 3D renderings.
It is that last point that is the source of my frustration. As far as I could tell, a 3D model in Autocad needs to be a completely separate entity from 2D construction drawings. And unless I've really been missing something these last 4 years, Autocad has no way to link 2D drawings to one another either. It is unbelievable to me that the most popular CAD program in the world is not more advanced.
Some here have mentioned Revit and Achitectural Desktop as being programs that have true 3D building modelling. I have played around with the sample software and while there seemed to be a large step towards architectural intelligence, it didn't seem like the technology was quite there yet. This may have been my own inability to learn the program without a teacher. If these programs really do allow us to fully link all of our drawings, I'd love to hear the good news but something tells me that we're still several years from that day. In my experienced with an older version of Archicad for example, I could cut sections from the floor plan but the lineweights were not nearly presentation quality and it was not possible to automatically render a construction type. (I think it would be great if one could specify wood platform frame, for example, and then cut a section and then automatically see wall plates, rim boards, etc.)
I don't know anything about programming but I don't think the program that I'm wishing for is by any means beyond what current technology is capable of. We were speculating on the other website that maybe the problem is that our bosses, who have more money and influence, don't know anything about CAD and therefore haven't made any effort to demand more advanced technologies. In my case, when my boss wanted to upgrade Autocad, I told him about Revit and Architectural Desktop. I tried to explain that if us drafters could double our productivity so that he could take on more work and make more money, etc. He really didn't buy it and opted to stick with Autocad. I think that as a profession, unless we ask for better , we'll still be trimming and extending lines a decade from now. Meanwhile our friends at ILM and Pixar will be enjoying the cutting edge in computer technology.
For those of you who use Revit and Architectural Desktop (or any program for that matter) I'd love to hear any opinions on the workability and future feasibility of linking drawings. I'm a little isolated in the little firm that I work for and I'm curious about what's out there.
Thanks and sorry again if I offended anyone.
-
:yikes: :horror:
-
What do you mean by "linking drawings"?
-
Hey everyone,
...Thanks and sorry again if I offended anyone.
Wow that's quite the 'First Post'! Welcome to theSwamp, Johnnythunders! :)
-
An archtect? Let's get him!! Hey when you find someone that knows how to use more than 30% of AutoCad, let me know. I'd like to meet the smartest man in the valley. (Please note that there will be a flood of responses saying that they meet this criteria. If you haven't gotten the idea yet, this is a nice bunch of folks, but they are all liars!! "cept me. You can trust me. :twisted: )
-
You can trust Dent as far as you can throw him. His name's not Dent for nothing you know. Big man.
-
Check the specifications of these programs.
They are tailored to the housing industry.
I have not used either one.
http://www.softplan.com/lpsoftplan.htm
http://chiefarchitect.com/
-
Hey everyone,...
is that your real monicker ?
or you wouldn't happen to be a real Heartbreakers/New York Dolls fan would you ?
-
Ronjomp- by 'linked drawings', I mean changing the floor plan automatically updates elevations, sections etc. Essentially one works on a 3D model and the program generates 2D drawings for you.
CAB- thanks. I had never even heard of either of these programs. I'll check them out.
Sometimes it's hard, though, to get a true sense of a programs capabilities just by playing around with the sample software. Does anyone know if software salespeople or company reps will do a demonstration for potential buyers? I know programs provide sample drawing files but I was pretty UNDERwhelmed by Arch. Desktop's samples. You'd think companies would put a little more effort into trying to wow you with these.
In my day job, I think, for better or worse, I'm stuck with autocad. But if I start doing a little side work, I want to make a very informed decision about the best possible program for small scale residential work.
Hendie- I AM Johnny Thunders of Dolls/Heartbreakers frame- risen from the dead and for some reason interning at a architecture firm. The rock and roll lifestyle was a little much for me so I thought playing with autocad all day would be a nice change of pace :)
-
REVIT is what you are looking for:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=5105956
-
ADT will do that too.
-
It is that last point that is the source of my frustration. As far as I could tell, a 3D model in Autocad needs to be a completely separate entity from 2D construction drawings. And unless I've really been missing something these last 4 years, Autocad has no way to link 2D drawings to one another either.
you've missed quite a lot in the last 4 years.
the 3d model is is in modelspace, in layout tab, insert a titleblock (scale factor =1), and open a viewport with the mview command inside the titleblock area.
use the view toolbar to display the desired view of the model.
use dview clip ti slice it if desired.
use zoom <scale>XP to set the scale of the view, (or properties or the viewports toolbar).
if annotating in modelspace, set dimscale and ucs appropriate for the view and annotate as desired.
if annotating in paperspace, set dimscale=1 and dimassoc=2 and annotate as desired.
paperspace (layout tab) is the "link" you're looking for. and multiple tabs is the drawing link you need.
It is unbelievable to me that the most popular CAD program in the world is not more advanced.
that's because it is more advanced, but it's users are not.
we have been doing exclusively 3d in plain vanilla autocad for several years now, without the need of additional vertical products like revit or ADT. (haven't used the render command in 3 years though)
commands to investigate:
UCS
VPOINT ROTATE
VIEW (save and restore)
VIEW TOOLBAR
VIEWPORTS TOOLBAR
MVIEW (all options)
MVSETUP
DVIEW CLIP
DVIEW TWIST
OBSCUREDLTYPE
OBSCUREDCOLOR
HALOGAP
XREF
PAGESETUP
-
Commands to investigate:
UCS
VPOINT ROTATE
VIEW (save and restore)
VIEW TOOLBAR
VIEWPORTS TOOLBAR
MVIEW (all options)
MVSETUP
DVIEW CLIP
DVIEW TWIST
OBSCUREDLTYPE
OBSCUREDCOLOR
HALOGAP
XREF
PAGESETUP
Don't forgot <F1>.
:)
-
Don't forgot <F1>.
:)
one of my fav's, especially since they made it context sensitive. before you had to use the apostrophe + question mark '? after entering the command to make it context sensitive.
-
You want 2D from 3D? Build your 3D model in MS, create the views you want in PS, jump to MS, then type "solprof" and hilight the 3D model. Shazaaam! You got a 2D line dwg of your 3D model. Works great for really detailed isos
......stuff you'd go bonkers tryin to draft in 2D.
Oh, this only works for true solids....bind xrefs & explode blocks first.
-
CADaver- I wish you were my coworker. I get the concept of what you're saying but I think I would really struggle to figure it out without someone to demonstrate. And I know my boss would not be interested in me taking office time to go through the learning curve. Maybe it's time for a little homework (after I finish the licensing exams.) So do you actually generate workable plans, sections, and elevations off the 3D model without a whole lot of redrawing and manipulating?
Ronjomp and Daron- Do you use Revit and ADT in your offices? If so, have you had success linking all of your drawings to the 3D model? I've spoken to just a couple of people- nowhere close to a real scientific sample size- but the impression I get is most firms who use these programs never really get beyond a series of un-connected 2D drawings.
But like CADaver said- maybe it's the users and not the program. I'm gaining some hope. I think what I really need is a real pro to demonstrate some programs for me. Has anyone ever a software demonstration session?
-
You want 2D from 3D? Build your 3D model in MS, create the views you want in PS, jump to MS, then type "solprof" and hilight the 3D model. Shazaaam! You got a 2D line dwg of your 3D model. Works great for really detailed isos
......stuff you'd go bonkers tryin to draft in 2D.
Oh, this only works for true solids....bind xrefs & explode blocks first.
Do you do entire construction sets with this method or just certain complicated details?
-
CADaver- I wish you were my coworker. I get the concept of what you're saying but I think I would really struggle to figure it out without someone to demonstrate. And I know my boss would not be interested in me taking office time to go through the learning curve. Maybe it's time for a little homework (after I finish the licensing exams.) So do you actually generate workable plans, sections, and elevations off the 3D model without a whole lot of redrawing and manipulating?
.....
But like CADaver said- maybe it's the users and not the program. I'm gaining some hope. I think what I really need is a real pro to demonstrate some programs for me. Has anyone ever a software demonstration session?
a long time ago (1984) i realized that if i was going to learn this stuff i would be required to invest a large chunk of my time. the average engineer spends about 20-30 hours a week for 4 years to get his degree, and that's just the very basics. i chose to show up at work an hour early and spend my lunch break every day teaching myself this new tool (1984 remember). so we're talking less than 10 hours a week dedicated to my career, here it is some 21 years later and I'm still showing up early and spending many of my lunch breaks learning this tool.
forums like this one will go quite far in getting someone a leg up on the program, so feel free to post any question you may have. be as specific as you can, and the answers will be much more useful.
now to your question directed to me:
So do you actually generate workable plans, sections, and elevations off the 3D model without a whole lot of redrawing and manipulating?
yes, several dozens everyday. we have written (or "borrowed") several hundred lisp functions to help automate the procedures somewhat, but it's still your basic out of the box vanilla autocad... r2002 at that. and it's not hard at all, we just had to choose to invest in our own careers.
-
Hendie- I AM Johnny Thunders of Dolls/Heartbreakers frame- risen from the dead and for some reason interning at a architecture firm. The rock and roll lifestyle was a little much for me so I thought playing with autocad all day would be a nice change of pace :)
LAMF ~ you got a personality crisis ! :P :P
-
and I thought "johnny thunders" was what happened after too much spicey food. live and learn!
-
JT....
I've got some conversions at work....I'll try to put together a little *demo* of what can be done with 3D-2D conversions...might be mid-day tho......
-
Oho, I would love to see that Bear.
-
OK.... I'm not too good at this but here goes....cuss me later.
We start out creating a 3D model of our system, kinda like this (http://theswamp.org/lilly_pond/bear/Model-3D.JPG?nossi=1). (Notice the list of xrefs....)Then it's xref'd into a title sheet and we create our vports, scale the model and dim & notate, like this (http://theswamp.org/lilly_pond/bear/Sheet-3D.JPG?nossi=1). Notice that the lower vport is "active". All of my xrefs have been bound and all blocks exploded to 3D solids. Solprof works ONLY on 3D solids! OK? OK!
With the vport active, type "solprof" and take the defaults *click, click, click*.... This will create a 2D drawing of your 3D object, relative to that vport. Move to the next vport and repeat. CAD assigns random layers to these creations, like PH-37r1 & PV-37r1....H being hidden & V being visible. I edit these after each "run" to something I can understand & use....
Once you finish, jump to ms. You should see something similsr to this. (http://theswamp.org/lilly_pond/bear/Converted-3D-2D.JPG?nossi=1) The next step is to delete your solids and rotate the front view 90 to match the top view. Purge all the 3D stuff and you end up with this, (http://theswamp.org/lilly_pond/bear/Final%202D.JPG?nossi=1) or a reasonable facsimile therof. Hope I haven't confused the rest of you as much as I have myself.........LOL
-
er... um.... Ted you know i love ya' man but....
sol???? commands divorce the drawing from the model, and IMMHO, that's a bad idea on a couple different levels.
one, the model changes, and all that sol???? rigmarole has to be redone, re-sref, re-bind, re-explode, re-sol????, re-annotate. PITB
or worse, there a couple of small changes and because of schedule or whatever, the changes are made to the drawing and the model is neglected. then you have other disciplines working with a model that is not representative of what's being constructed. and those changes may be lost if someone later makes a model change and executes option one above.
as you've pointed out, the sol??? command work on 3dsolids ONLY, which limits the use of some extremely productive tools like non-uniformly scaled blocks (unit blocks). that alone is a deal-killer for me.
to me, a much better option is annotate the model, not a facsimile of the model. xref it in just as you've said above, but instead of the bind/explode/sol??? rigmarole, use DVIEW CLIP to cut slices of the the actual model (if slices are needed). place those views of the actual model in the PS viewports, and annotate in PS. then if the model changes, all you need edit is the annotation to make sure it reflects the model.
but hey,
that's just me.
-
I KNEW I'd hear from you, Randy! LOL Actually, I agree with you but.... I have clients who are stuck in a flat world....2D only, and they need to drop my unit into their overall site plan. I *tried* to talk them through matching my 3D model to their silly 2D line-drawings, but.........besides, I can e-mail a 725k 2D dwg where a 40m 3D would take "a while", especially on a modem connection........
It's a PITB to keep up with the changes, like you said, but that's why I get "the big bucks".....yah, riiiight!
Believe me, the shop gets 3D prints....and they LOVE 'em! The only time I screw with this is to send to them stupid civils in CA............
Now to hear from Dent.......
-
I KNEW I'd hear from you, Randy!
yeah, well, somebody has to be the voice of reason, right? :lol:
The only time I screw with this is to send to them stupid civils in CA.........
see that's odd, our civil guys were the first to jump on 3d back with r12 and dca (softdesk).
-
Well, it's kinda like a consulting firm....works with the city/county to set up the landfill area, work out enviro issues etc... we just supply the flare station. Some of the engineering/drafting offices in the same parent Co. ARE starting to use 3D....this particular one isn't.........my luck never changes. LOL
-
my luck never changes. LOL
don't let your wife hear you say that, or we'll have to change you moniker from bear to bunny.
-
LOL!!!!
I try to "change my luck" with THAT girl & you'll be short one member here....me too! LOL
Anyhow ..............
This whole exercise was for JT, to give him some ideas.
BTW JT, like Randy said, once you get your line dwg, it's no longer "linked" to the 3D object(s). The only proggys I know of that hold that relationship are the paras .... Inventor, SWX etc..... and they're a whole different story.
-
The only proggys I know of that hold that relationship are the paras .... Inventor, SWX etc..... and they're a whole different story.
and plain autocad, when you annotate the model. <grin>
-
Trouble maker!!! <me too>
What I MEANT was that Inventor et al will automatically create a 2D "sheet" from a 3D model, and update the sheet when you change the model. However, I've played w/Inventor and the learning curve was ferocious and I'd have to trash my entire parts library and start all over creating (RE-creating, in this case) I-parts that would work in Inventor. For me, it's not gonna happen. The "kid" I have here now will pro'lly fill this seat when I shag out-a here in a few years....he can change 'em then if he wants.......
-
T-bear and CADaver,
thanks so much for your comments and demonstrations. I think I'll have to come in an hour early every day for a long time if I'm ever going to master those techniques on my own. (CADaver, I hope your employer appreciates your efforts.)
I'm a little intimidated by all of the new info. It makes me think that a dumbed down program like chief architect or softplan might be best for my (lack of) skills and needs- or maybe something more architecture specific like Archicad. For now, I think maybe I'll seek out a good book on Autocad. Did I mention that the person who taught me Autocad barely even spoke english?
-
JT said:
........the person who taught me Autocad barely even spoke english.......
Sounds like a "Swamper".....mebee me or Dent......... :lol:
Don't let AutoCAD intimidate you, it's just another program. Even after a year of "school" I was CAD illiterate....it just took a while to find out. It's something that grows easier with time. You just have to understand YOUR limitations (not meant as a *bad*) and, slowly, with time, practice, and the help of good friends, overcome them. It's amazing how much I've learned in the few years I've been on these forums. And I thought I were a genius, too!! :oops:
Stick with it (and us...) and you'll find that it's a great tool. The majority of the CAD drafting done today is on AutoCAD vanilla.
-
or maybe something more architecture specific like Archicad.
[rant][opinion]Archicad??? Chills down my spine. I've never had a good experience with that program. Well, at least not with any of the people touting it. They speak of it like it's the greatest program to ever come out. They were trying to show how seemless it does its rendering. When they showed it to us, it looked like the walls materials didn't wrap correctly. Then, I asked them some questions. They gave some really lame responses that showed me that they were just sales people and really didn't have a clue.[/opinion][/rant]