-------------------------------------------
Michael Clark AIA
Director Of Design
H&H Design-Build
New Albany IN
-------------------------------------------
I am having a flashback!!
I too started working in CAD in 1982 on a Microstation system. It was cheap at $50,000. It was slow and painful. By 1984 the A&E firm of 60 purchased 4 computers and armed them with Autocad. The computers were much cheaper at $7,000 a piece, but they again were slow and painful. I remember keeping a set of specifications near by to work on while Autocad regenerated each time I zoomed in. Jump ahead to 1988; and we still had 4 Autocad workstations. The thought was that every Architect who used Autocad for their projects, went over budget and eventully lost their job. Autocad was thought to be very inefficient and costly.
This A&E firm of 60 then made a commitment to Autocad as the tool of the future for design and by 1990 had 28 Autcad workstations. Detail libaries had been set up, the soft ware was better, and everyone had developed the skills necessary to make Autocad profitable and the production tool of choice. No one would ever dare think about going back to the pin bar hand drafting system.
In 2007, I was faced with an important decision on whether to purchase Revit instead of Autocad. I had talked with other Architects who were using Revit and heard the same story. Revit was great for doing quick renderings for the client, but as a production tool, it was hard to learn, slow, and was not a profitable production tool. At that time, I felt that 3d modeling was the future of design, but knew that it would take a 100% commitment to make it work.
I made that commitment, purchased 5 seats of Revit and have not regreted it from day one. It started out slow and painful, but now everyone in my office that has ever used Revit would never willingly go back to straight Autocad. Even if I chose to use only 2D linework, I would be more productive with Revit than working with straight Autocad.
I have been using trade names like Revit and Autocad because I don't use them for BIM or for CAD. I use them for design and drawing production. In my mind, CAD is almost any thing digital and BIM is great for projects over $20M.
Revit is a complex and difficult program to learn, but once you hit that plateau where you are productive, it will really become a great tool. There are now lots of sites where you can get tutorials, 3D models, and details.
The best benifit of Revit is what it has done with my thinking. I don't think in 2D anymore. Anytime I am working in Revit, I have a 3D window open and find myself working more and more in that 3D window.
I believe 3D modeling programs are the future of design. I have seen more and more Architectural firms going 100% Revit. I had my first phone call from another Architectural firm asking for my Revit file from a past project. (I said "No, but I will send you Autocad files.")
That's my 2 cents worth.
Show Original Message
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2011 10:58
From: Alan Burcope
Subject: Gaining Control of CD Production and CAD
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Practice Management Member Conversations and Project Delivery .
-------------------------------------------
In my twenty years of practicing architecture I have watched and taken part in the CAD revolution. From drafting in lead, then ink and plastic lead to CAD on a VAX centralized computer system with stations as large as a small car, and finally to PC based workstations. CAD has changed the profession, some for the better, some for the worse.
Somewhere about six or seven years ago, it took a very bad turn.
AutoDesk, who had made great strides in improving productivity for architects and engineers to that time, turned on us. I saw it as a strategic move on their part to exploit the fact that they had achieved a captive audience, and wanted to start peddling that access to vendors through online links and libraries, directly to the desk of the CAD drafter and architect. If you owned their stock back then, you got well.
When CAD became a standard practice in most firms, it was a drafting tool. Interns and CAD drafts-people essentially copied sketches into the computer. Many architects resisted learning CAD because they didn't want to get stuck in a position of drafting for another architect. I did not resist because I saw it as an opportunity to learn to design on the computer. When I became licensed, I was one of the only architects I knew who could, and it was a huge advantage for me. By the time I was in my late 20's almost all architects I knew were CAD literate.
CAD had reached a point where it was simple enough for architects to use it, yet effective enough that it really boosted productivity. But AutoDesk just couldn't let well enough alone, they had to fix what wasn't broken. They have now made it so complex that once again architects are not able to do their own drafting. It is all in the name of "collaborating" and BIM.
How much of the capability of CAD/BIM is really to boost productivity, and how much of it is to maintain AutoDesk market share, and provide job security for CAD drafts-people? I think it could be much simpler, but that is just one middle aged architect's opinion.
-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope AIA, MBA, LEED AP
VP Project Development
HBE Corporation
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------