BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
This isn`t an orifice, it`s help with fluorescent lighting.
Date:
Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:05:04 EST
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (878 bytes) , text/html (1959 bytes)
In a message dated 3/7/2004 9:32:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I don't know whether CADD is good for designing new buildings or not,
but it surely is good for studying old ones.
John,

The consensus seems to be that CADD is pretty good for new buildings.

Part of my excuse for remaining a hand-drafting dinosaur has been that
histo-presto/old/existing buildings are so non-repetitive that CADD doesn't make
sense and hand drafting is better.  I too am blessed with the ability to think in
3D.  On the other hand, I often find that hand-drafting helps me find things
(too-thick walls, for instance) that I didn't see in the field.  I wondered
whether, but now realize that, you would find these sorts of things in the
course of doing a CADD drawing, too.

Damn!  Another reason to remain a dinosaur bites the dust.  Pretty soon it's
going to come down to being too damn lazy to learn it.

Ralph


ATOM RSS1 RSS2