Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | This isn`t an orifice, it`s help with fluorescent lighting. |
Date: | Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:04:41 -0600 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Forcing myself to learn my cadd program was not easy. And it may be
that not slavishly choosing the standard CADD program and the standard
computer platform resulted in a much more pleasant experience than is
standard. The building I'm working on at the moment has a lot of
repetitive elements, but I have been working on others with little
repetition. The singular elements are not a burden. I am in truth
drafting much faster and more acurately than ever before.
But! I have a small job coming up with a log building. I think I will
draw it in CADD, but then print it out and trace the drawings free
hand. Hell, I'll use my favorite hand drawing tools...a big black
kindergarten crayon and a big black soft Ebony pencil for the fine
lines.
-jc
On Mar 7, 2004, at 10:05 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 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
>
|
|
|