I'm not sure that the program has fewer options. It seems to be
capable of anything I want to do and a whole lot that I don't want to
do...now. Without some way to filter its capabilities, I had a
difficult time learning the program and became hopelessly confused.
This was in an earlier version where the "Architect" features had not
been separated from the basic program. That version belonged to a
former employer, and I lost its use. I think it was a good thing.
Placing windows, doors and so forth individually is not problem. I
prefer that method. The tool, "Move" is very useful for that.
Eyeballing works fine, and the "smart points" or whatever they are
called help too.
I should note that I'm creating models to illustrate conditions and
explain the building. I haven't tried any construction documents yet.
But when I do create construction documents, I still try to illustrate
existing conditions and to define the problem and the acceptable
solutions. I don't think I've done much work that was so simple that I
could tell the trades person to do as I direct without any thinking or
calculating on his/her part. Certainly, my best work was not done that
way.
I have no regrets. Except I wish I'd dived in sooner.
-jc
On Mar 21, 2004, at 1:49 PM, creighton wrote:
> well I guess just like any program, the simpler it is to use the less
> options you have. I guess that's only if the simplification consists
> of the
> program doing things for you. Templates, objects and so on. As you
> suggest
> starting with the basic bones would be a good idea. One thing that
> worried
> me was a icon on the test version sent me that allowed automatic
> insertion
> of clouds.
> It reminds me of the trend of buildings to be designed around catalogs
> instead of the balance achieved pre 1850 when buildings were designed
> as an
> entirety. Look at any window catalog and you will see wildly unbalanced
> buildings.
> So I worry about a program telling me that I'm not on 16" centers
> or
> have improperly dimensioned lumber. It doesn't seem that's a problem
> with
> this program as you see it.ctb
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [BP] Surprised again
>
>
>> So far the restrictions are self imposed. There are parts of the
>> program I have not yet mastered. I am aware of them, and go back and
>> learn more about how they work when I decide I need them. Drawing in
>> 3D from the start is a real good thing.
>>
>> I did not buy the "Architect" package. The basic package has the
>> basic
>> parts of buildings (walls, floors, roofs, windows, doors, light,
>> etc.),
>> as well as the basic tools for creating 3D and 2D shapes and objects.
>> Learning within these limitations was a good thing. There's a real
>> clarity that comes from mastering the basics.
>>
>> I plan to purchase the Architecture package sometime soon. Now that I
>> have a basic understanding of what the program does with the data I
>> input, a few short cuts for tedious things and a larger collection of
>> plug-in objects and symbols would be nice. If I'd had them earlier, I
>> think they would have been confusing.
>>
>> What kind of restrictions did you have in mind?
>>
>> -jc
>>
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2004, at 10:55 AM, creighton wrote:
>>
>>> do you find vector works restricts you in any way? ctb
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 11:36 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [BP] Surprised again
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm using VectorWorks.
>>>>
>>>> I have had very little experience with AutoCAD, and like most
>>>> "standard" programs, I found it had no other feature of any import.
>>>> Since I tend not to work in standard ways, or on standard buildings,
>>>> being the standard is not a compelling argument.
>>>>
>>>> -jc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 21, 2004, at 9:31 AM, creighton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Very interesting , and timely. Are you using AutoCAD? I've Been
>>>>> toying
>>>>> with
>>>>> AutoCAD 14 for two years without really applying myself. I recently
>>>>> decided
>>>>> to get on it, but first review the other programs out there (
>>>>> vector
>>>>> works,
>>>>> softbuild, softplan) So far these seem to be ok for cookie cutter
>>>>> houses,
>>>>> but not for restoration work. Your experience, anyone else out
>>>>> there
>>>>> have
>>>>> something to check out before I commit? Unfortunately I am stuck
>>>>> with
>>>>> windows.creighton
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "John Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:19 PM
>>>>> Subject: [BP] Surprised again
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been drawing two historic buildings in my CADD program.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> nature of the program is such that 3D is just how it works, or at
>>>>>> least
>>>>>> how I have learned it. As I was drawing the building today, in
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to study it and know it better, in its original construction, I
>>>>>> realized that I was not only seeing things that have not been seen
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> long time, but things that may have never been seen before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CADD drawing does amazing things, like defy gravity and the laws
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> physics. Two things CAN occupy the same space at the same time.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> drawing in a storage system that had been placed up against a
>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>> I never questioned it before, but when that sucker popped up in
>>>>>> 3D,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> was a surprise to me. Must have been a surprise to the inspector
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the job too!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 3D views help to confirm that what I think is going on really
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> going on. That's great for an insecure guy like me. Builds
>>>>>> confidence. I do think in 3D pretty much all the time and pretty
>>>>>> effectively, but it is such a relief to have my minds eye view of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> world confirmed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -jc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
