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.
