[rusteberg]

damn, negroe....... i still balance my checkbook

[yolk]

rusty? i hope that's a movie quote

anyways. i see the benefit of work done in 2D. but what i thought was, that autocad being primarily a 2D program and because it has such a long history, it would be one of the best 2D software out there. yet any parametric modeler like creo, catia, swx etc outshine it just with their own 2D sketch solvers. that's all.

[Polyxo]

rusty? i hope that's a movie quote

anyways. i see the benefit of work done in 2D. but what i thought was, that autocad being primarily a 2D program and because it has such a long history, it would be one of the best 2D software out there. yet any parametric modeler like creo, catia, swx etc outshine it just with their own 2D sketch solvers. that's all.

I think that all typical Solid-Modellers are far too focused on the mechanical production world to be of optimal use for Architects.
As cool as Solid-Modellers are - they have an inbuilt and comfortable logic-concept which may be hard to extend upon.

Not saying that such can't be done and I believe there's still that Gehry-Adaption of Catia for those offices which can afford.
But I think especially for Architecture, using generative solutions like Grasshopper3D and Generative Compontents as well as
custom programming is far more flexible and rewarding. It's broadly in use anyway.

[Fernando Tella]

anyways. i see the benefit of work done in 2D. but what i thought was, that autocad being primarily a 2D program and because it has such a long history, it would be one of the best 2D software out there. yet any parametric modeler like creo, catia, swx etc outshine it just with their own 2D sketch solvers. that's all.

What do you miss in Autocad that you have in SW? Just curious.

[JDHill]

I think it's a good point, where RobMitchell wrote above that AutoCAD is basically the IE of 3D software. The CAM software used in my dad's cabinet shop runs as an AutoCAD plugin. CAM for cabinetry has such different requirements than other CAM, that this plugin is able to be indispensable, expensive, and horrible, all at the same time. We could move to something else, but a) we really only require 2.5D, and b) we have years invested in integrating this solution in the shop. So the pain of switching to something else would be greater than the pain of staying with the current solution.

This is just offered as one concrete example, with the point being: this plugin wasn't so much built in AutoCAD because that was the best environment, but because it was basically the only viable environment, when it was originated. So it really is much the same situation as with IE: there is a lot of business infrastructure that depends on AutoCAD. There may be better solutions now, but by the time they appeared, too much was already invested.

Eventually, I'd like to find the time to write a substitute for it, definitely in Rhino, but that is a pretty big undertaking, so for the foreseeable future, we'll continue to need AutoCAD.

[Fernando Tella]

In architecture the workflow is different. We are taught to work and think in 2D (at least I was)

I think the only reason for that is computers weren't powerful enough back then. I can't think of any professions more suitable to work in 3D than architecture and industrial design. They have adapted, architects not. Why?

In fact we architects think in 3D but show things in 2d cause it is much easier. There's no need to define every detail in a building just say "this kind of detail goes there". For example: if engineers and architects had to to make drawings of an artichoke the former would make a detailed drawing including every leaf of the artichoke and the latter would draw a stem and an egg-like shape filled with a line pattern representing the leaves. And that's fine because architects and engineers work in different scales and need different level of detail to show things.

-certain amount of snobbism in this profession. What the older generation doesn't understand is classified as a gimmick.

- architecture software HAS to be overly complicated and silly, otherwise it's not "pro" (tied to first reason)

Those are old school architects IMO. Nowadays architects are more humble for many reasons.

- cost of construction. Use the most inefficient, crap materials that make you sick and consume lots of power to keep warm/cool, even though there are plenty of better alternatives, which aren't much more expensive. So then as Brian says, any change that will cost them anything, is out the window. Usually.

That's true, most of the times there is no time or money to make a 3D representation of your project. Economical conditions are set by the clients and very few are willing to expend more than the minimum needed.

This is just offered as one concrete example, with the point being: this plugin wasn't so much built in AutoCAD because that was the best environment, but because it was basically the only viable environment, when it was originated. So it really is much the same situation as with IE: there is a lot of business infrastructure that depends on AutoCAD. There may be better solutions now, but by the time they appeared, too much was already invested.

Eventually, I'd like to find the time to write a substitute for it, definitely in Rhino, but that is a pretty big undertaking, so for the foreseeable future, we'll continue to need AutoCAD.

Good point JD

[yolk]

i'm not debating the merits of 2D and i think it makes sense in architecture and other fields. what i deplore is autocad still works like a 80's software.

i am sure they could have modernized it without breaking compatibility, so all the businesses who have to rely on it, because they have so much legacy data, could enjoy a state of the art software, not this dinosaur.

[Fernando Tella]

What's that so old?

[rusteberg]

rusty? i hope that's a movie quote

sorry... mouth fart....

a lot of older people pay for their groceries with checks and then balance their checkbooks after handing over the check while the cashier is waiting to hand them their receipt.

everyone stuck in line behind them asks the same question in which you titled your post.

you could argue they are still stuck in a previous era, but after the person behind them pays with a credit card, and the person behind that person pays with cash, everyone that has passed through the check out line leaves the store with what they wanted regardless of method of payment.

The person who pays by card asks why the person paying by check hasn't adapted to a more modern form of operation.

The person paying with cash asks why everyone else bothers with the baggage of a check or credit card.

The person paying by check asks why everyone's in such a damn hurry.

Meanwhile, the grocer, who can't control the behavior of everyone, decides not to discriminate any of its customers.......

[hatts]

rusteberg, I like your metaphor.

But I think everyone already agrees with that principle. If you asked any of the commenters on this board, they'd say that at the end of the day the tools don't matter if the job gets done.

That being said....down with Autodesk.
(only joking...sort of...)

[eric nixon]

I've worked in large Arch offices, where 40% of total overhead is ACAD licenses.. thats something to be angry about as they sack long-term loyal staff due to recession... hmmm. The legacy effect of standardisation (nothing else but Acad files are accepted by subcontractors) means Autodesk have you by the balls.

Personally for all 2D design, I just draw stuff!

I use a Pencil and finely gridded paper + overlays of tracing paper, to produce dimensioned sketches. These sketches are scanned as a backdrop for 3d modelling. Eventually 2d elevations are rendered from the 3d model (as well as 3d views). This workflow is sufficient for stage B planning applications.

My mind is free to actually design, when I'm holding a pencil staring at a drawing board, not a mouse and a screen.. But to progress and refine that design I prefer to be in a 3D 'space'.