Replies

1. 
   ProBozo | Dec 08, 2003 11:10pm | #1

   FAX   ;)

1. 
   bobl | Dec 09, 2003 01:57am | #2

   take a look at sketchup

   i have not used it but have done some of the tutorials

   looks good

   it is not cad

   seen good remarks about it

   can douwnload an 8 hour version free

   caost ~$500bobl          Volo, non valeo

2. 
   stossel1 | Dec 09, 2003 02:34am | #3

   I took a beginning Cad class at the local community college this semester, money well spent. One semester and you will be able to do floor plans and sections.

3. 
   JohnSprung | Dec 09, 2003 03:08am | #4

   > I find CAD to be difficult for me to use,(learn). 

   It's not just you.  CAD cannot be easy to learn because drafting is not a trivial subject.  Not sure why, but a lot of people assume that calculus is a lot harder than it really is, and that understanding building plans is a lot easier than it really is.  As has been suggested, taking a class can get you over the hump on this learning curve.

   -- J.S.

4. 
   Piffin | Dec 09, 2003 03:19am | #5

   What kind of CAD have you been trying to learn that has convinced you that it is hard for you? It may be that you have the hardest there is and it has you bushwangled and crosseyed....

   You haven't mentioned your budget, but both Softpaln and Chief Architect make it moderately easy to learn the basics, using builder language instead of techie-talk.

   Bruderbund's 3D Architect is fairly easy for a junior package that is budget priced.

   .

   Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   skids | Dec 09, 2003 04:17am | #6

   I asked that same question here myself some months ago and got the same answers as you have received. I then took classes at the local community college in AutoCAD. While I was in the classes I asked the instructor about the other programs that some of the other contractors from this forum were using. Instructor said that interoperability between programs was not there yet for all the programs out there, and that since most of the architectural drafting offices out there are using AutoCAD that it was the only way to go.

   As Business Information Management becomes more important in running a competitive construction business, and as the company expands, that interoperability is going to be a key factor. Currently there is some stuff about Autodesk buying out Revit and that is expected to "maybe" be the next wave. I don't think its quite there yet, but be ready to get on board with Revit when it becomes the language that everyone is speaking. Don't buy the beta, go for the VHS instead!

   As it is now with the interoperability of AutoCAD you could make a drawing of the cabinets you propose for a customer. You could present the customer with a 3D rendering for approval, then you could e-mail the drawing to a cabinet shop that will plug it in to their cnc machine to cut, route, and machine all the pieces out of whatever material you spec, and deliver to your site or workshop to be assembled, finished, and installed by your crew. Saving time and money without sacrificing quality. These same things will manifest themselves in estimates, materials lists, scheduling,etc. All the things that go into operating a business. Business people that don't take advantage of these techniques will go the way of the dinosaur.

1. 
   FastEddie1 | Dec 09, 2003 05:47am | #11

   Skids, what you said was basically correct about Autocad being more or less the industry standard, and if you learn it then you could get along at most any architrctural or engineering office.  However, I take exception to what the 'professor' told you, or didn't tell you: just because there is no interoperability between programs is no reason to put on blinders and stick with AutoCad.  Trying to use AutoCad for 3d is beyond the budget of almost every individual, and there are several fairly easy to learn and reasonably affordable packages.  Learning AutoCad was a good move, now go get a dedicated 3d program and be productive.

   BTW I learned AutoCad back in 1986+/- on a 286 computer and I think it's a great program.  However I also use a Chief Architect program for 3d because it's a better choice.

   Do it right, or do it twice.

1. 
   Piffin | Dec 09, 2003 06:44am | #12

   In SPLASH, the Softplan users group, there are a multitude of reports of various forms of the following scenario;

   There is an architectural office with several seats for ACaD. One guy in the office is impressed with Softplan and its capabilities. because the firms principles have already invested a fortune in the ACAD licensing and training, they are unwilling to purchase SP. The individual purchases it on his own and puts it to work.

   He becomes far more productive than others in the office and can indeed interchange files with the ACAD teams with only minor limitations.

   Inoffice agony results when management realizes they have made a questionable choice and are faced with following along the same road.

   SP probably is not a good choice for commercial and industrial buildings, but I do not believe it can be beat for residential structures. autodesk has invested a lot of dinero in creating and perpetuating the myth that they own the future and the language for architectural design. There are many heretics who no longer worship in that church.

   Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   FastEddie1 | Dec 09, 2003 07:09am | #13

   SP probably is not a good choice for commercial and industrial buildings,  I think that's the key issue.  AutoCad is probably still the industry leader for commercial work, and that's why it's taught in school.  After all, who wants to go to school to learn how to draw a house?  Any fool can do that, and build it themselves after work & weekends, and save 40%.  (That's only a little sarcastic...home design and building are not high priority in school anymore.)

   In SPLASH, the Softplan users group, there are a multitude of reports  I'm a little skeptical of those self-agrandizing reports, not only from Splash but from any source.  I think it's human nature and ego to tout how you have solved a problem and one-upped the system.  (No offense to Spalsh, or the program.)Do it right, or do it twice.

2. 
   Piffin | Dec 09, 2003 07:37am | #16

   Don't know how it could be self agrandizing. This is from those frustrated from trying to convince the upper management that they should re-invest in the face of admissions that SP is the better suited.

   Splash is not in any way run by or connected to SP except that it is exclusively for users bnut it is run by them and not by SP.

   I hope you are being more than a little sarcastic. Any fool can drive a nail too, but it takes a lifetime of experience to know what kind of nail to drive and where to drive it..

   Excellence is its own reward!

3. 
   FastEddie1 | Dec 10, 2003 06:08am | #27

   I hope you are being more than a little sarcastic.  Oh, it was dripping in sarcasm when I wrote it.  I have a problem withj the attitude of a lot of collige perfessors, particularly junior college and liberal arts.  They see things their way and refuse to admit there are options.  That's why the original poster was told to stick with AutoCad, when in fact Chief or SP quite probably would have filled his needs better.  Also, I think most people really do think that commercial and industrial architects and builders are top drawer, and a house can be built by anybody with a hammer and a saw.  And many people, builders and owners alike, realize too late that building a quality home is a lot harder than it looks.

   I know what Splash is, and my opinion on _some_ of the posting there, as well as other sites, is still that they want to toot their own horn.  It's like the guy (or gal) on the site who always has a better way, or has done a better job, or a more difficult job, etc.

   Do it right, or do it twice.

4. 
   Piffin | Dec 10, 2003 06:55am | #28

   I don't get it aas anyone trying to show off but aas everyone helping expose others to "look what can be doine with this !" in a sharing atmosphere.

   Excellence is its own reward!

5. 
   brownbagg | Dec 09, 2003 07:09am | #14

   there also autocad lite which is a smaller version of autocad written by the same people. It a lite version without all the bells and whistles

   The best employee you can have but you wouldn't want him as a neighbor " He the shifty type"

6. 
   brujenn | Dec 09, 2003 07:37am | #17

   Well put Piffin

   As a former user, I can tell you that there is life beyond slavery to the Overpriced God of Bugs, AutoCad. It has always been that ACAD is the drafting program taught in schools, and most of the instructors are sincere but ill informed when they tell you that it is the industry standard and you'll be lost and on your own in the wilderness if you make a mistake and pick another "lesser program".

   People who don't do their own research still buy it because they think they have to have the industry standard. What you will find when you look around is that most CAd programs are easier to use than ACAD, and that most of them support both DXF and DWG file formats and are therefore compatible with each other, ACAD incuded. Just be careful if you do import an ACAD file into another program though, because the author probably had to do some tweaky workarounds to get the drawing to stay together.

   Industry standard.... just the term makes you wonder what would have happened in the '80s if we didn't all believe that we "needed" IBM compatibles.

7. 
   JohnSprung | Dec 09, 2003 10:10pm | #23

   > to the Overpriced God of Bugs, AutoCad.

   I switched from TurboCad to AutoCad LT.   I even beta tested versions 6 and 7 of Turbo.  It has a couple orders of magnitude more bugs than AutoCad, and they keep adding new ones.....  ;-)

   -- J.S.

8. 
   xMikeSmith | Dec 09, 2003 07:32am | #15

    a good friend of mine dug ditches for  me  when he was going to school... Harvard School of Design.....

   his buddy wrote all of the early " Inside Autocad " texts  that taught how to do Autocad better that Autocad could...

   when he finally went CAD in his own Architectural firm, they didn't go Autocad.. they went Vectorworks.... so , there he sits... with his 20  architects on staff.. on Park Ave..

    without a single Acad license.. just whistling while they work... grinding away, designing 20 million  dollar homes... including one for the guy who wrote all the Inside Autocad books..... hah, hah, hahMike Smith   Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore

9. 
   Piffin | Dec 09, 2003 07:43am | #18

   I've worked with an interior designer from the same neighborhood (and price structure - wow!) who also uses Vectorworks. I can open his drawings too. Maybe three years ago the argument about cross dressing was valid, but not any more. The programs are getting more fluent in translating all the time..

   Excellence is its own reward!

2. 
   darrel | Dec 09, 2003 07:56am | #19

   " since most of the architectural drafting offices out there are using AutoCAD that it was the only way to go. "

   This kind of argument is rampant in the software industry.

   It's one of the few industries where people believe that supporting a monopoly is a good thing. Not sure why. I've seen many, many companies base very large software purchasing decisions on every criteria OTHER than the actual quality of the product.

   Interoperability is, of course, useful, but you need to put in the context of the big picture. How much file transfers to you REALLY need to do? Would standard CAD file formats suffice or do you absolutely need the exact same pieces of software? Would you be so much more productive with an easier to use software product that it would actually make fiscal sense to just buy AutoCad in addition to your favorite product for the few times you need to receive files from others? Etc.

   I'm not saying AutoCadd is bad, but don't choose software just because it's what everyone else is using. Typically, what everyone else is using is the monopoly's product and, as such, will undoubtebly be more expensive, have a more restrictive licensing agreement, and is probably not the best option in terms of ease of use nor having the most up-to-date feature set.

1. 
   skids | Dec 09, 2003 09:02am | #20

   I love these discusions, very informative. Thank you to all contributors. I do not claim to be an expert in AutoCAD or design, in fact I am a very new student to it at the JC level, but the information I relay to you is from an instructor who is a practicing draftsman by day, with an archtectural degree from cal berkeley, still about 8 tests from the license for archy. I went after him in class with many of these questions/claims/statements that I heard here in this forum. 

   I am somewhat of an expert in layout for construction. Cutting my teeth in the tracts as an apprentice carp in so cal starting in 1976. The thing about tract work is that you get many many reps at an incredible pace. Layout skills, in my mind, make the builder/craftsman, regardless of the trade/specialty.

   I have participated in some discusions in this forum with others about how to "layout" for this or that, a rake wall in particular, or how about a bridge on a super(a very slight bend with long radius point and a camber), coming into an abutment which is at an angle to the bridge, and the abutment itself is on a 15 degree banter? (I call this a triple compound angle, my specialty)

   My point is that in several applications a builder will do a layout, and cutlist from plans (double work with BIS) before assembling said cut parts and installing. Now imagine a world where an architect has a cutlist developed, as well as materials list for estimate, when the plan is drawn. Imagine a detailed plan with building information system (BIS) that you could take the cutlist and cut everything before assembling any two parts of the house. From what I hear it is not there yet in residential, but I think it is coming, I am doing everything I can to bring it there, and I want to be able to speak the language. There is a program for sheet metal layout written by sham tiku, that can be added to AutoCAD that will enable the user to layout on flat sheet stock complicated patterns for bends like 90 elbows etc. I want to be able to plug that in and use it if it pertains to what work I am doing. 

   If some of the other software plans out there are functioning in a way to share information like this, and are open ended so that individual programs may be added then I think that this too qualifies as speaking the language. I am reasonably certain I won't be out of the loop with AutoCAD, and am keeping a close eye on Revit for future developments.

2. 
   moltenmetal | Dec 09, 2003 03:39pm | #21

   Quality is entirely in the mind of the user.  It depends on what you want out of the package.  Some packages are very easy to use for simple tasks but have no depth behind them for more complex uses- step off the simple path and you're in a minefield.  Others are so powerful that they are inordinately complex and slow to use for simple tasks.

   I can guarantee you one thing:  a standard, even a lousy standard, is better than NO standard!  I still remember the days where every computer manufacturer wrote their own operating system which made the best use of the features of their particular hardware.  The users had to figure out how to use it.  And when the hardware was obsolete in three years and no longer supported, they had to learn yet another, totally different platform.  That's a bit of a "quality" problem too!

   AutoCad may be built on an old platform and be otherwise imperfect, but it's a standard.  An employer can find somebody with experience with the package that they gained elsewhere- or like me, experience they gained fifteen years ago- and put them to work immediately.  No steep learning curve, no courses before you can do productive work.  What's that worth to you in dollars and cents?  If you're working by yourself, not much- but if you're the boss of a growing firm, it's worth a lot!

   As to productivity with the package, it depends entirely on what you're doing with it.  I've made tons of money for my company drawing things up in AutoCad and having somebody feed them directly into a CAM system (particularly a local guy who has a plasma cutting table for stainless and steel plate and a waterjet cutting machine to cut just about anything else)- in many cases the parts come off the machine ready to use.  The "standard" nature of AutoCad means that whoever is working out there has to at least have the capability to open and read your drawings. 

   If I were doing nothing but architectural drafting for residential, I agree with other posters- AutoCad is probably overkill.  That 3D Architect package looks quite impressive, especially with its ability to render with surface treatments etc. and its library of furniture and other stuff so you can give the owner an idea of what their finished space will look like.

1. 
   darrel | Dec 09, 2003 05:34pm | #22

   " a standard, even a lousy standard, is better than NO standard! "

   In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. The problem is when you let a software vendor make the standard. It's still convenient, but you end up giving that one vendor a lot of power in the market, eventually driving good competition away. (Ie, Microsoft Word, for instance).

   So, it's a double-edged sword.

   Industry standards, put together by a consortium of vendors or the industry itself are always a good thing (well, ALMOST always.) ;o)

   "No steep learning curve, no courses before you can do productive work. What's that worth to you in dollars and cents? "

   A competant CAD user should be able to pick up using any software package after a few days. If the package is ultimately more productive to use compared to the 'industry leader' then a few days training up front is certainly worth in the long term.

   It sounds like AutoCAD works for you, and that's great. I'm not saying it is a bad application. I'm just saying that one shouldn't choose a software package just because it's the industry standard, rather they should pick the best package for what they want/need (and sometimes that is the industry standard).

2. 
   WorkshopJon | Dec 10, 2003 12:54am | #26

   "a standard, even a lousy standard, is better than NO standard!  I still remember the days where every computer manufacturer wrote their own operating system which made the best use of the features of their particular hardware."

   Molten,

   I don't know if you remember, but that was AutoCad back in the late '80's. Before MS-DOS could utilize the advanced capabilities of the newer Intel processors, Autodesk decided to have there product (AutoCad) remove portions at startup and rewrite portions of the OS to get their product to work. The problem was...it screwed up other programs functionality.

    "I've made tons of money for my company drawing things up in AutoCad and having somebody feed them directly into a CAM system for.......steel plate and a waterjet cutting machine to cut just about anything else)- "

   Sounds like simple 2D plots to me. Any CAD package should be able to do that.

   FWIW, Few manufacturing companies use AutoCad relative to the numbers that use all the better (more expense)  and/or cheaper CAD programs out there.

   The biggest problem with it, is that it has been designed to be all things, to all users, it is pricey, and doesn't do any one area better than the CAD programs specifically designed and dedicated to those specialties. ie. architecture, mechanical manufacturing, electronic design, etc

   Jon

3. 
   Adrian | Dec 10, 2003 11:01pm | #31

   I'd have to disagree with you on the manufacturing aspect, at least as it concerns the wood products industry, including cabinets and furniture. Lots of other programs used too, but Autocad is the standard for general CAD, many companies have a seat or two even if they have CAD/CAM, and you can find Acad running in the background of other programs with different names (Microvellum, for example). I see more and more moving to solid modelling programs, but Autocad is still big in the mix.....Mechanical Desktop too.

   I do teach Autocad, but I'm not an apologist for it....there are lots of things I don't like about it, and there are lots of other good programs out there....I agree with the people that have been saying if you know one CAD package, you should be able to learn others pretty quickly,and we try and focus on basic principles, rather than a specific language. I see my students picking up CAD/CAM and solid programs fairly easily because they have good general CAD skills. The chicken/egg thing is hard to get around, I can tell you that.....the schools don't want to dump Acad, because they do believe it is a standard (rightly or wrongly).....industry keeps hiring the grads, because that's who are out htere. Way more capable Acad users than Bentley or any other program, so yeah, they still have market share in lots of industries (losing it in architecture though).

   I'm doing a little project at home for a buddy, dusting off my old Turbocad program....you do have to relearn things after not using any program enough.....that's a great little program. It can do pretty much anything I need it to, and it does a lot of things better and faster than Autocad.cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, N.S

4. 
   jc21 | Dec 10, 2003 11:28pm | #33

   I've been satified with IntelliCAD. Seems pretty capable and IntelliCAD4, the newest release (which I don't have yet),  is available with solid modeling capability. Used AutoCAD (R14, 2000) in school and where I worked- the migration to IntelliCAD was pretty painless. There's an architectural add-on called ArchT I hope to get in the spring. From the demo it looks very capable and there's a large symbol library. Some claim it is the equal of Architectural Desktop- we shall see.

5. 
   WorkshopJon | Dec 13, 2003 12:55am | #34

   "I'd have to disagree with you on the manufacturing aspect, at least as it concerns the wood products industry, including cabinets and furniture. Lots of other programs used too, but Autocad is the standard for general CAD,"

   Adrian,

   I'm just guessing here, but if there is pervasive use of Autocad in the "wood products industry" they obviously have a very low level need.

   Autocad is a dinosaur. While still capable of doing overall CAD stuff OK, it doesn't do anything really well, doesn't have anything close to the advanced tools available in programs like UG or Pro-E, and it lacks the seamless integration with CAE and CAM that the better programs offer. As for your comment,

   "I see more and more moving to solid modelling programs,"

   That happened 15 years ago, and parametric modeling has been the norm for over a decade. IMO, the only reason you still see it used (Autocad) , is 'cause some engineer learned it in college, and hasn't been exposed to anything better, just like the instructor who taught it to him/her.

   Jon

6. 
   Adrian | Dec 13, 2003 02:49am | #35

   Well, I'm just saying what I have observed....go to any CAD forum used by woodworkers....and I'm not talking about very small shops, but medium to large operations, the majority of the questions revolve around Autocad. That's what I see in the offices....that's what I see in the job ads. I have little exposure to CAM outside of the wood industry, but most of the companies I know of that have CAD/CAM, still have some Autocad seats. I don't know what UG is....I do know Pro-E, and have never seen or heard of anyone in the wood industry using it.

   Solid programs are indeed pretty new in the wood industry; most companies are still only playing with it, not using it for production work. Parametrics are more common, in specialised programs for that industry....like I said, many of them are running on Autocad in the background.

   Don't balme me if the industry is behind, or their needs are more basic than others; just reporting here.cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, N.S

7. 
   WorkshopJon | Dec 13, 2003 04:41am | #36

   "I don't know what UG is...."

   Adrian,

   UG, short for EDS Unigraphics, which is just about the best CAD/CAM/CAE software on the planet.

   http://www.eds.com/products/plm/unigraphics_nx/

    if you're curious, and is used by many, if not most in the automotive, aircraft and aerospace industries.

   "Solid programs are indeed pretty new in the wood industry; most companies are still only playing with it,"

   That's what I found intriguing, as doing solid CAD is soooo much more productive, and it's not exactly new. Combined with the advanced parametric features of today's CAD, using it should be a slam dunk.

   "Don't balme me if the industry is behind, or their needs are more basic than others; just reporting here."

   Sorry if I came off that way, just shocked at how behind the times some are.

   Jon

8. 
   Adrian | Dec 15, 2003 04:04pm | #46

   Thanks, Jon....I figured it was Unigraphics, but I've never come across it in real life.

   solid modelling is pretty new in the wood world (I deal with residential and commercial cabinetmakers, millwork and architectural woodworkers, and furniture manufacturers, from the small shop up to plants in the 200-350+ range.....not huge, but that's what is in my area. I also travel across the country a bit, and I've been to pretty much every major wooworking school in this country, met a lot of manufacturers at events there.....we always get talking about software, so that's where my opinions are coming from).

   Many firms are still using Autocad, because the shop floor really only needs 2d drawings a lot of the time....millwork and commercial cabinetmaking especially, it's mostly 2d and 3 views, and there is a lot of to and fro with the architects, still a lot of Autocad there. One of my students did a search last year, found over 900,000 jobs available in Canada and the US that specifically called for Autocad skills (that's not just the wood industry of course, but most job ads I see in my industry call for AC.  So we teach Autocad as a starting point.

   You'll also see parametric (often Autocad based) programs specifically for wood, geared to commercial work, that do 3d modelling like Microvellum and  Pattern Systems (RapidEngineer seems to be their cutting edge package).....they both run on Autocad, but have a lot of automated production add-ons that make them very useful, and they create 3d models and CNC ready parts. So, if you are a woodworker, you would be more likely to turn to something like this than Pro-E, I would think.

   Residential cabinetry, customers want 3d renderings, so there are a lot of custom packages people use there.....Cabnetware (I have that), Cabinetvision, KCD, etc.....parametric based, will give you 3d drawings, and also automates the bill of materials, cutlists, door/drawer front lists etc. You can sheet optimisation modules, and link to CNC as an add on (they build in a 3rd party CAM package like Alphacam). You can get more capable versions too that work for commercial work.

   When it comes to CAD/CAM, there a some packages that are tied to specific machines/companies, or there are third party packages.....Mastercam (which I have), and Alphacam seem to dominate.....my understanding is that these are medium level packages compared to what is used in some industries, but they certainly do what we need them to do.....they're not cheap (my version of Mastecam goes for 15K US or so, I think), but the're not super super high end either. Bear in mind, we're not building 747's....a great deal of the stuff a woodworker has to deal with is 2 1/2 D.....you need a 2d geometry, and then you just enter some Z-axis values. Again, that's where Autocad comes in......often, the geometry is pretty simple, and some people prefer Autocad for that.

   Pure solid modelling packages are indeed pretty new to the wood world.....I'm thinking of programs like Solidworks, Solidedge, Inventor here, not the super high end ones......and there aren't that many who are really using them yet....in part, because they're slower, and if you have a combination of the types of programs I've mentioned, your needs are being met. Now, personally, I think they are underrated, and they will become much more popular, hopefully soon, but it's a conservative industry. What we need are drawings people can understand, machine ready parts, and some automation of the logistical information.....drawing a 3d model of a basic cabinet in yet another program isn't a huge priority, especially if it takes longer. I have Inventor, and starting next year, hopefully we'll be teaching it.....long story as to why we're not teaching it yet.

   Illustrative example: two of my students worked last summer at a fairly big plant in my province; one of 2 Ikea suppliers in North America, they're developing their own line of furniture also. c. 250 people on the floor; highly automated, but no CNC. Company made the cover of Wood and Wood Products magasine. My students worked on the product development team.....all Autocad. They had one seat of Inventor, and one person that knew how to use it.

   So, right or wrong, that's what I see in the industry. Most people are using one or more of about 20-25 industry specific programs, that you've probably never heard of if you work in other industries.....and they are for the most part pretty capable, productive programs that meet the needs of the industry. We can do screen to machine, but for many pure solid modelling (done in a seperate program) isn't a necessity. cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, N.S

9. 
   BossHog | Dec 15, 2003 04:32pm | #47

   Maybe I'm getting off the subject a bit here, but...

   Seems like I heard that microsoft had bought Intellicad. Is that correct?

   If so, I wonder how that will affect CAD software in general? Microsoft certainly has the money to go toe to toe with AutoCAD and bankrupt/buy out all the other competition.I got an answering machine for my phone. Now when I'm not home and somebody calls me up, they hear a recording of a busy signal.

10. 
    jc21 | Dec 15, 2003 07:20pm | #49

    "I heard that microsoft had bought Intellicad"  Iirc, Microsoft did in 1999 when it bought Visio (who originally acquired IntelliCAD when it bought the assets of a company call Boomerang Technologies. Given Microsoft's problems with the Justice Department, Microsoft/Visio spun off IntelliCAD into it's own organization, http://www.intellicad.org, a consortium of software developers. So if Microsoft did own IntelliCAD, it wasn't for long.

11. 
    WorkshopJon | Dec 16, 2003 02:25am | #51

    "Thanks, Jon....I figured it was Unigraphics, but I've never come across it in real life."

    Adrian,

    After all the time you put into your reply, I would have felt guilty not responding.

    I see where you are coming from. BUT the thing I don't think a lot of people realize is how far CAD has come in the past decade. Despite the fact that cutting edge CAD/CAM/CAE costs way more that the old "standards," the ROI is pretty quick after one gets over the learning curve.

    Ten years ago when I started using UG, the hardware (dedicated Unix workstation) and software cost ~$50K seat. The cost of the hardware is now moot (all PC based), and a seat costs ~$20K. Given what most of our guys on the floor make, having a software package that triples, if not way more, their productivity, Spending that much for the best simply makes good business sense.

    BTW,

    ]Here's a link to the company I work for's web site.

    http://www.jppattern.com

    Jon

12. 
    JohnSprung | Dec 16, 2003 03:40am | #52

    > and a seat costs ~$20K.

    So to upgrade from AutoCad LT to UG would be sort of like trading in an F-150 on a Euclid.

    -- J.S.

13. 
    WorkshopJon | Dec 16, 2003 04:18am | #53

    John,

    Pardon my ignorance. I don't quite know what a "Euclid" is.

    One of the reasons our company IS STILL competitive is because the owner's provide us with the best tools, wether it be software, hardware, or machinery and equipment, perishables, whatever, to make us as productive, and able to do stuff few in are field few can do. The reason companies like General Dynamics, Mercury Marine, Harley Davidson, Milwaukee Electric Tool, Briggs and Stratton, as well as numerous Universities, the list goes on into the hundreds, come to us (a small 15 person operation), To make stuff they can't.

    Jon 

    Edited 12/15/2003 8:23:11 PM ET by WorkshopJon

14. 
    JohnSprung | Dec 16, 2003 04:38am | #54

    Euclid trucks are used in the mining industry.  Capacities are in the 200 - 400 ton range, tires 12 ft. in diameter, price tag in the low millions each.  But driving them is surprisingly similar to an ordinary pickup truck on a grand scale.  So the idea was that UG is to ACad LT sort of what the Euclid is to an F-150:  bigger, far more capable, far more expensive, but priced only for business use, out of the range of a private individual.   Or at least way far out of my personal software price range....

    -- J.S.

15. 
    caseyr | Dec 16, 2003 04:54am | #55

    Euclid is a maker of heavy duty earthmoving equipment, particularly very large dump trucks - sometimes (usually?) referred to as "Euks".  Couldn't find a really good web page of current equipment (although some referred to "Euclid - Hitachi", I didn't see any pictures).  However, here is a page on Euclid history:

    http://www.baumpub.com/publications/heg/Features/heg_03Jul_f5.htm

16. 
    xMikeSmith | Dec 13, 2003 05:06am | #37

    Adrian.. the link  acouple of days ago to an Autralian CAD reseller is a very interesting place...

     they sell CAD for ALL industries.. so i punched up cabinet design..

     look what they have to say...

    http://www.cad.com.au/cad/Cabinet-Furniture%20design.html

    Mike Smith   Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore

    Edited 12/12/2003 9:19:13 PM ET by Mike Smith

17. 
    Adrian | Dec 15, 2003 04:32pm | #48

    Hi Mike;

    those programs are variations on the themes I mention in a reply to Jon, above....some of them have tried to gain market in North America (Cuisine for example), some I haven't run across, but there are similar programs here. Bottom line, I have no doubt solid modelling is the future of CAD, but we've already got production software that uses varying degrees of it.....like in Chief...what's inportant? That every stud is a true 3d model, or that you can get a 3d view of the house, and print off a 2d framing layout?

    I still believe there is a place for general CAD, at least in my end of things....for example, my guys just finished a small cabinet project, part of which included drafting up the working drawings. To build it, all you need is three standard, 2d views at most. It would take me maybe 10 minutes in Autocad. Most of the guys went and did 3d models (in Autocad); not necessary, took them considerably longer, but they had a pretty isometric to add to the drawing. One guy did it in a solid modelling program; took him the longest.....lovely drawing, though. He would have had a jump start if we were going to use CNC to make the cabinet, because he already had the solids......but we weren't. If he had gone to the specialised cabinetmaking software we use (Cabnetware; unavailable, getting a new upgrade put in), he could have got all those views including an isometric, and a cutlist, and a bunch of other useful information, in maybe 5 minutes.....but he wouldn't have had a solid model, not at the level of the software we have. it depends on what you're doing, how important that model is.

    Anyway, I'm trying to get my guys comfortable with a spectrum of programs, and to know what to use, when. And still on a huge learning curve myself, that I don't expect to ever stop.cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, N.S

18. 
    skids | Jan 03, 2004 01:48am | #56

    thats what i'm talking about! i see the day in the future when i as a contractor will submit my cad plan via e-mail, and my house will arrive in several shipping containers. much like a giant kit. with an extremely detailed blueprint it could be possible to cut every piece of a house to size, before any two pieces are assembled. then preassembling sections that can be easily transported to a site, packed in a container, to be assembled as a unit/house-much like the cabinet plan/program is plugged into the cnc machine-only extrapolated for an entire house.

    this is how the big corporations will be able to send even a large part of our domestic housing construction industry overseas-outsource cheap labor-increase profits. the guy that puts this into practice successfully will be the henry ford of the new millenium! 

19. 
    ANDYSZ2 | Jan 05, 2004 07:33pm | #59

    i have seen shows where the japanese build totally assembled houses in a giant factory under roof then ship the house on trucks with a trained crew that assembles whole house in about 4-5 days including elec and plumbing. I too think 30- 40 years from now all houses will be built by robots in a large factory and shipped.

    ANDYSZ2I MAY DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOUR SAYING BUT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT.

20. 
    skids | Jan 05, 2004 10:07pm | #60

    i recently saw on the history channel how winchester went into the firearm business. previously he was a shirt manufacturer, he had a guy working for him that set up the shop, former sewing machine mechanic. anyway at one point in the show the narrator commented that henry ford wasn't the first to use mass production techniques, he was just the first very successful one to use it with automobiles.

    we have all seen the advances in technique over time in construction, but i think construction is still way behind many other areas of industry. it wasn't until 1945 that they even started to use production techniques in house construction in earnest. in my lifetime i saw a house being built by a crew that still used the one stud at a time method, toe nailing each (off a step ladder for top plate) IMHO there is still much room for improvement.

    there may be a little paranoia in there, but when they outsource my job i wan't to be on the inside track for a new one. besides just because i'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me!

5. 
   gdavis62 | Dec 09, 2003 04:36am | #7

   I knew how to make drawings by hand well before I learned CAD.  When I was in college, I moonlighted to make beer money by doing structural steel detail drawings for $80 a sheet.  I learned to be fast.  When I was well into my 40s, I found myself running an engineering department where all the guys were CAD proficient.  We were using a package called CADKEY, very much like AutoCad, and the software had an on-line interactive tutorial that I used.  Took me 40 hours to get through it, but by the end of it I was quite proficient.

1. 
   hthomas | Dec 13, 2003 09:16pm | #41

   Thank all of you for your cortributions to my question about CAD programs. I feel that I now can proceed with some "informed" direction.  This is my first time using Breaktime, and the response and quality of responses was gratiflying...thanks, ever so much...Tommy

6. 
   gdavis62 | Dec 09, 2003 04:45am | #8

   There is a nice package available called DataCad.  Their "lite" version sells for $149.  Take a look at it at their website.  DataCad is aimed at the architect and contractor, and thus has features and benefits addressing our needs, unlike a full-bore mechanical package like AutoCad or Cadkey.

7. 
   gdcarpenter | Dec 09, 2003 05:13am | #9

   3DARCHITECT  It's very easy, dare I say intuitive, to learn.  Can do elevations and perspectives.  Does have limitations, like can't do structrual drawings, but can help you sell projects by giving clients visual representation of what you are proposing.  Not very expensive either.  My version must be 5-6 years old  now and works for my limited needs.  Just a thought.

   Let's not confuse the issue with facts!

8. 
   WorkshopJon | Dec 09, 2003 05:16am | #10

   "Can anyone reccomend a easy to use software package please?...."

   Tommy,

   I've been using CAD since 1988 (learned on AutoCad V10.0), and very high-end CAD (EDS Unigraphics now, which can cost up to $20K per seat) on a daily basis for over ten years. I also USED to be proficient at Auto Cad and CadKey. While I can't make a recommendation, I can tell you that you really need to find a package that you are sure will fit your future needs after you learn it.

   Low end CAD my be easy to learn and cheap in the beginning, but can also cause you to have learned ingrained bad habits after you have outgrown it. All the packages out there still have different ways of doing stuff.

   So do your homework before you buy, and don't cheap out.

   Jon

9. 
   AdamB | Dec 09, 2003 10:30pm | #24

   I have no idea what your computer skills are.  but to answer your original post.

   Mainly I would like to communicate designs, and floor plans w/elevations to customers.  Can anyone reccomend a easy to use software package please?....

   My 78 yr old grandfather (GC 45 years) with no computer experience at all.  Sat down with Chief Architect, and in maybe 2 hours had 80% of a 4 bd 2 bath house done.

   Framing, roofline, side elevations... electrical spec. .....

   I have taken quite a few classes in autoCAD.... but for a easy way to communicate floorplans and have a simple way to generate a 3D elevation, I would still use Chief architect.

   Christmas is coming..... should I buy the wife that new tablesaw ....hmmmm

10. 
    flangehead | Dec 10, 2003 12:20am | #25

    I am a remodeler and build mostly my own plans, if for nothing else than to pull the permit. I have used generic cadd, turbo cad, softplan , 3d home arch, and chief arch.

    I like chief the best.

11. 
    ian | Dec 10, 2003 02:23pm | #29

    Tommy, have a look at this site  http://www.cad.com.au/cad/selector.html#industry  has a useful tool to help you to select the program that best fits your needs

    Ian

1. 
   Berd | Dec 10, 2003 09:15pm | #30

   Tommy,  the link that Ian provided is ok, if you like sales sites. It promotes their version(s) too much. It is partially true though. Chief Architect is a nice package, depending on how much they want for it.

   I teach Cadd (consultant for 15 years, worked for Autodesk, and at a Technical Inst., etc.....)  It all depends on how much drafting you plan on doing.

   There is no one software package that will make everyone happy, or that is easier to understand/learn than any other. You can buy quite a few for under 500$. Autocad, Deltacad, TuboCad, Chief Arch. They all can do exactly what you are looking to do, some cost more, some do more......and the learning curve for each is dependant upon how much they can do.

   If you plan on drafting for a few hours a day/every day, than get a better(more $$$) package.   AutoCad Lt cost +400$ and it does it all (short of 3D, but as a beginner you wont be doing 3D) It will be the only one that you can take classes for at your local comm. college anyway.  But only if you are serious, cause the learning curve is bigger.

   Otherwise, Turbocad was the best one the last time I saw it, (2 years ago) for someone just drafting minor work.  Easy to learn, works on any pc, not too many bugs, etc... compatability if you care.  I have heard good things about Chief Archi., through trade mags and such, but i dont remember what it costs.

   I hope I helped you somewhat by this long winded answer.

   Good luck anyway

   Berd

   Otherwise

1. 
   JohnSprung | Dec 10, 2003 11:13pm | #32

   > Otherwise, Turbocad was the best one the last time I saw it, (2 years ago) for someone just drafting minor work.  Easy to learn, works on any pc, not too many bugs, etc...

   My experience is exactly the opposite.  I used turbo starting with version 1, and even beta tested for versions 6 and 7. 

   Turbo's .DWG files just plain don't work with any other software, so I upgraded to AutoCad LT.  AutoCad's user interface is much easier and faster for the basic stuff that you spend the most time doing.  You don't have to go to a toolbar and change modes nearly as much.  Turbo has more bugs, and the beta test experience is that they don't fix bugs in the fundamentals, they just add features.  If for some reason I had to give up AutoCad LT, I'd definitely go with anything other than Turbo.

   -- J.S.

2. 
   mmoogie | Dec 13, 2003 07:03am | #38

   >>AutoCad Lt cost +400$ and it does it all (short of 3D, but as a beginner you wont be doing 3D) <<

   Short of 3D is a deal killer in my book.

   I use Vectorworks and have never used it for anything but 3D from the start. I can't see bothering with 2D for anything but detail drawings, and even then I start from a 3D model then generate 2D from that rather than the other way around. Drawing in 2D with a 3D program is a huge waste of time.

   Steve

12. 
    Remodelboy | Dec 13, 2003 08:56am | #39

    I am an architectural student and I see most of my classmates struggling with Autocad, Vectorworks and Archicad.  I started many years ago with something called Generic Cadd on my old 386x33 PC.  It was great and pretty easy to learn.  It got sold and renamed Visual Cadd then Corel Cadd and eventually got bought by Autodesk - where it dissapeared from view, but eventually reappeared as new features in Autocad.

    As time goes on, the software becomes easier to use.  The latest version of Autocad Lt 2004 is the easiest so far, as is the full version of Autocad 2004.  If you want something even easier, try Autosketch or Quickcad ($49) also from Autodesk.  The nice thing about using these is that if you advance to Autocad LT or Autocad, you will find the interface to be familiar.  Try this link http://www.autodesk.com

    I bet you that you will find Quickcad to be as easy to use as I found Generic Cadd to be - about 14 years ago.  Good luck!

1. 
   CAGIV | Dec 13, 2003 12:19pm | #40

   hey just wondering where you're a student of arch at?

1. 
   Remodelboy | Dec 14, 2003 10:18am | #42

   Cal Poly Pomona extended university.  They help us old guys pursue an education.  And don't misunderstand, just because I've been doing cadd since the dawn of the PC, it doesn't mean that I'm good at it!!! :) 

1. 
   CAGIV | Dec 14, 2003 11:11am | #43

   cad isn't too bad, and autocad can be pretty cool once you get to learn it, but you'll never  learn all of it, I've been using it on and off since high school. give or take the last 10 years.  The capabilities are amazing, most of which don't really apply to anything that applies to doing prints for a house.

   I'm graduating with a BS, that's Bullsh!t not bach of science in arch at KU.

   what did you do before you went back school.

   Edited 12/14/2003 3:13:06 AM ET by CAG

1. 
   WorkshopJon | Dec 14, 2003 07:33pm | #44

   "autocad can be pretty cool once you get to learn it"

   CAG,

   And high end CAD IS REALLY COOL compared to it. And I agree, I don't think anybody ever learns it all, especially at the help desk. I don't think a lot of people out there in the field realize how far CAD has come, and how it has sort of morphed over/become integrated with so many other applications like engineering, spreadsheets, Pixar-like presentations.  The list goes on.

   I do not have an engineering degree, but am able to to design, engineer, and test, do virtual "fly throughs" of stuff I design, and virtually automatic (well not quite, you have to change the defaults), CAM program generation utilizing the software we have at work.

   The advanced CAD/CAE/CAM software of today allows one to do in a day what previously took months....Once you learn it.

   Jon

2. 
   Remodelboy | Dec 15, 2003 03:54am | #45

   I'm a General Contractor.  I started out in the program trying to become more sensative to the requirements of Architects.  I wanted to be the contractor that architects would look forward to working with.  I guess that I have shown some imagination, because I have had instructors tell me that I could be the architect that contractors will want to work with - pretty nice complement coming from an architect! :)

   Congrats on your degree.  They have that program at CalPoly San Luis Obispo.  If I were a young man without any responsibilities, that is where and what I would be studying.  Not to become wealthy, but it seems like a very enriching experience.

2. 
   ercollins | Dec 15, 2003 08:13pm | #50

   One thing I haven't noticed anywhere is the difference in how the CAD packages draw.  Chief Arch,  3d Home and several others draw groups of lines that the program recognizes as a collection of items.  That can be a 2x6 stud wall w/ brick veneer, 2x4 interior partition wall w/ gyp. bd. on both sides, 36" lower cabinet or other "typical" item.  Even doors and windows.  That is what speeds up the drawing process.  Other CAD packages like AutoCAD and Microstation in their vanilla flavours draw lines.  That's it.  It is up to the draftsman or viewer to interpret those lines into something recognizeable like the above mentioned walls, doors or even site plan, landscaping plan, utilities plans and so on into all industries. 

   I mentioned flavours, autodesk the manufacturers of AutoCAD have 3D architectural software called Architectural Desktop, Building Services for 3D planning of HVAC, plumbing and electrical and they have a new package called Revit which was purchased whole from the EU competition for the NA market.

   Now the first collection of packages will get you up and running in the direction you want very quickly.  Provided you don't plan on design really funky homes and deviating from the standard 2x4, 2x6 and fixtures.  Otherwise your learning curve is going to take some time or sketch up what you would like and find an architectural student who would like to make some beer money.  They're quick and usually pretty good.

   Good luck

   erc

13. 
    CleetusJones | Jan 03, 2004 02:45am | #57

    I just posted this reply in the business section for someone who had a best software question. In response to the the statements about industry standards and Auto Cad being the software of choice. With soft plan you can export your drawings in *.DXF or *.DWG formats same as Auto Cad uses. The only issue with that, is when export or converted to these formats they can only be seen as line drawings. Not a big deal because that just means the receiver of the DXF or DWG drawing can't open it on their program and do 3d modeling from it. But if the receiver of the drawings needs to see renderings I can send them In Jpg or any other number files types. Also I can send them in PDF format. Most everyone has Acrobat reader to view/print from PDF format. So I am not sure that buying Autocad just because most of the industry uses it is much of an issue. Softplan works for me because it is geared for the home building industry and has many design tools to support that. Auto Cad is a great program but it's use is very broad and is geared for almost all types of design work and therefor, very complicated. BTW, many softplan users are ex Auto Cad. I use Softplan 12. Great program. I was able to get a good handle on it in the first week or so. That allowed me to make great drawings. I still learn everyday, time saving tricks that are built into this very powerful software. The rendering capabilities of this software is amazing yet somewhat addicting. I find myself spending to much time rendering than drawing because of the WOW factor. Others that use this program go way beyond Softplan's rendering with the use of 3rd party software. I am very pleased with how Softplan comes right from the box both with it's drawing capabilities and rendering so I haven't felt the need to purchase 3rd party complementary software. I found the free software help line to be mediocre at best. I was given the wrong info one time and found that to be frustrating, but there is a great support group independent of Softplan, called Splash cost $75.00 a year and worth every penny. This is where I get all my help and on occasion offer help.  Softplan cost about $2300.  You my find other design software to be geared more for rendering with less drawing tools, but it sounds as if you need both. Check out Softplan.com and SoftplanSplash.org.   Hope this helps Mike

14. 
    BJMattson | Jan 05, 2004 07:15pm | #58

    Hi Tommy

    I was checking out courses at Columbus State Community College (http://www.cscc.edu), in Columbus, Ohio and found they use 2 different software packages in the courses available for the Architecture certificate in "3D Visualisation".  The certificate has you take at least 4 courses in one software package, plus having background in construction drawing.  This is in addtion to required coursework using AutoCad and MicroStation Cad.

    The two programs are form*Z and Autodesk Viz4. 

    You may find it helpful to see which software skills are being hired locally - it suggests what other contractors/architects might be using and thus what you might want to be compatible with. 

    Any nearby community and technical schools may be able to tell you what software they picked and why - they usually teach what the market research suggests is employable.  Also, if you signed up for a class at any college, you'd be eligible for student pricing on the software, subject to limitations on the licensing.  Many student software packages come with a discounted price to upgrade to the full professional model - this gives you a less expensive "try before you buy" option, plus if you take a class on it, you get some structured training to be sure you can use some of the common software features.

    BJ