CAD v Modeling
-
I am currently trying to develop a workflow link from SU to CAD drawings for architectural work (small scale stuff - houses).
So far I have worked out that the plans and sections can be exported from SU with a thickness applied to the section cut, thus eliminating the need for linetype adjustment later. I am currently using CAD to add dims and some shading to the SU import. That just leaves the actual detailed drawings and as I import these as 'standard' details (to be adjusted per project) this is quite simple.
With discipline in the creation of SU model, so far this is working quite well.David
-
@dcauldwell said:
I am currently trying to develop a workflow link from SU to CAD drawings for architectural work (small scale stuff - houses).
David
David,
I would like to see the your results. Although I see the thicker section cut line weight in SU. I don't see how that is differentiated in a dwg. Another person who's work is interesting in this respect is Greg LaVardera (he's online) who uses sketchup quite a lot in his plans. We had "process" thread here a while ago. Don't mean to derail this one, if that's what I am doing.
Peter
-
I'd like to share three cents. First, C-A-D, whatever you choose "D" to mean, has not been the same for every one. In my opinion actually, CAD or CADD has always been about "Design Documentation".
Second, at the heart of it computers actually do not yet Assist design. The act of design (the verb) as well as the product (design as a noun), again IMO, still happens and is mostly produced between the ears.
Third and last, there is no 'versus', there is no this OR that. The central issue around A versus B lies in that the prevailing software, whatever that is, has had a different focus, approach and implementation across the lands and through time. "D" has not always been about "drafting" nor has it always been about actually "designing". These are non-exclusive terms. In effect, there are these software applications such as AllPlan, ArchiCAD, Arc+, Architrion, DesignCAD, PointCAD, SilverScreen... some still around since the early days (80s and 90's) with a deep Architectural flavor (as in CAAD) which did do "D" AND also had a rather robust set of modeling features - albeit by today's standards, not as user-friendly a UI and not as organic or free-form. All of these afforded users the ability to create geometric or architectural forms, possessing 2-and-3D drafting-modeling features almost since day/version one; allowing Design Documentation in some way shape, or form, for sure some better or more suitable than others.
Just my 3 cents...
Cheers,
- Diego -
-
Just to wade in, i dont think you need to worry too much about which category to put your software in, as long as it gets the job done in a timely manner all is well.
-
always the voice of reason remus.
you should change your name to reasonmus.
Pav
-
Very interesting topic indeed - and certainly there is something with architecture / architects in it (without any resentment - and also without resentment because of mentioning it).
I understand that most architects use it in the early phase of their workflow; design, quick and effective way of communication with clients etc. THEN - after they exploited all the strength of SU and need to step forward to produce construction documentation and such - with the more proper applications.
For me, SU is mainly the last phase - which is a kind of "luxury phase" at the moment actually - replacing hand drawn visual reconstructions of archaeological finds.
What we do during an excavation is generally (and compulsorily - if such a word exists) accurate and of course scale hand drawings of what we find. Then these drawings (often hundreds or even thousands of them) are manually digitized for final excavation documentation which we have to produce (along with the written excavation reports, photos what-not) to hand in to the National Heritage Authorities. This documentation is somewhat similar to architects' construction documentation; with all the (specific) symbols and such - obviously we need not make structural analysis and things like that however.
At this stage we are (legally) done; can go for a beer or to sleep. But there comes Gaieus and from a floor plan (and obviously using similar examples elsewhere) tries to find out how a certain building may have looked like. And this is where SU becomes handy. Exactly what it is meant for; a quick design tool, an easy to modify reconstruction to communicate with other archaeologists (still using only paper and pencil) and eventually the lay people who visit an archaeological site and would like to know how those generally just one foot high remains looked like.
Very interesting job and so far there is not much competition in it.
And LayOut is something that is even enough for creating my own excavation documentation for instance so I am pretty contented with these two tools.If my two, major wishes for LO would once come true, I would be the happiest user of it:
- embedded 3D PDF of the SU model and
- embedded flash video
on PDF export (both are officially filed at Google and I got the answer "ah yes, these would bee cool..." - hm... whatever this means
). I think this would blow away those officers at the Heritage Authorities.
-
@dmatho said:
I'd like to share three cents. First, C-A-D, whatever you choose "D" to mean, has not been the same for every one. In my opinion actually, CAD or CADD has always been about "Design Documentation".
Second, at the heart of it computers actually do not yet Assist design. The act of design (the verb) as well as the product (design as a noun), again IMO, still happens and is mostly produced between the ears.
You are right. Whether it is a paintbrush, pencil, musical instrument or a computer program the essence begins and evolves in the mind of the creator. That said, and sequing back to 'CAD', what I have found invaluable is the 'freedom to explore' a CAD program or any of the other progs I use, provides. Where a table drafting designer cringed when he/she was asked to make changes on the board, or to a hand built model, thoses changes and explorations are now far less daunting. (I love the sound of electric erasers in the morning) Of course the downside is, the more opportunity there is to make change the more chance there is of procrastination.
DE -
Gaieus,
I wonder if you have seen this:
http://pompeiji.evtek.fi/flash.html
I think it was done in 3DSMAX (not sure) but of course most of it could have been done in SU except the final visualization.
Anssi
-
@unknownuser said:
I'm a UK based teacher and have been searching for almost a decade for some effective way of introducing CAD to our students. Over the years we have tried numerous CAD packages from pro-desktop (supposedly designed for school use)
A few years ago I did some Design & Technology supply teaching so I have had "experiences" with Pro-desktop. It is bloody awful software. I never thought I'd hear myself say "It would be easier to teach kids AutoCAD" but it would. I heard so many teachers assert "Pro-desktop is what the pros use!". I've been a CAD technician for over ten years and have yet to come across any firm that uses Pro-Desktop. No offence to teachers but I got the impression that most teachers only had the word "Pro" as evidence that the pros must use it. I know it's supposed to be similar to Pro-Engineer, but Design and Technology in School is not engineering. I met the same resistance to Sketchup but then surprise when people saw what it could achieve.
-
Great subject, look at all the discussion it has inspired. Perhaps "resentment" is too strong, and if I "miffed" anyone, please accept my apology.
Su entities are primarily poly-lines and (to my knowledge) the ports can not include non-entity properties between CAD programs. Thus if you change a window location, or material in a Su model (or or in a CAD file), it will not correctly revise the other drawing. I am not sure how Su components are exported, if they remain blocks (or other CAD equivalents), then other then properties, portion of CAD file can be updated from Su. If not, then each component must be separately exported then inserted into the CAD database. Any entity added to the drawing after is ported will not be related to the replaced component.
Still, beats drafting by pencil on paper. By the time a production drawing is sent to the printers for distribution (especially in the construction phase), the sheet was almost worn trough by an eraser. Often, at this point the accuracy of the drawing was also in question. Today when I change a detail in CAD the system attempts to keep track of its occurrence and links to other drawings through out the set. It wasn't long ago that sepia reproduction was the only practical means to produce a set of "as-builts".
Don't get me wrong, since the demise of Trispective, without Su, I would still be plodding through client visualization and presentation, but to hope that it can replace a production system remains a dream. Look at what years of programing accomplished with the improvements from ver. 6 to 7. I suspect that because of Ruby, much of what is requested is difficult to accomplish. If the programmers switched languages, Su would lose all of the plugins that have been developed. As for the non-visual design process, I am still waiting on a tool that will create functional diagrams that can be easily edited then converted into a floor plan that remains parametrically connected to the diagram.
-
That's a nice one, Anssi, thanks!
What we made a while ago (it it was an EU supported co-operation where I contributed to the Hungarian stuff - my city) is this one.
I wasn't using SU then yet so we worked with a guy who used Achicad and was then rendered in Max.This one however was already made by me in SU (and only rendered in Max by someone else). Although I had only been using SU for about half a year back then, the speed of modeling was already way faster (on more complex structures) than back then when we were struggling to communicate what I want and how the Archicad guy thought to implement it.
-
I have produced a simple video using SU, without narration, of a residential design that morphed from a plan into a 3d view that zoomed, and circled the building, but the Pompeii presentation sets a much higher standard for me to work to. Thanks.
-
@hazza said:
... what is the difference between CAD programs and Modeling programs.
just pick a circle, set the segments to "3" and you will see what's the difference to a prof. 2D CAD as e.g. AC or Medusa or a 3D MCAD modeler as e.g. SolidWorks/Inventor/Pro-E/Alibre or a 3D CAID modeler as e.g. Rhino/ViaCAD/Shark etc.
SU is a mesh-based modeler creating triangulated facettes from polygons as an approximation of the "real" face, i.e. no exact, NURBS based freeform surfaces.
additionally:
⢠3D: no volume information
⢠3D: no feature-based modeling/editing
⢠3D: no exact 2D derivations of section cuts
⢠2D: no high-entity support
⢠2D: no configurable/comprehensive dimensions
⢠2D: no surface or GD&T symbols
⢠2D: no exact printing scale
etc. pp.in short: SU is intented and surely great for creating fast and easily 3D design layouts and sketches targeted at presentation and visualization purposes.
hth,
Norbert -
@unknownuser said:
in short: SU is intented and surely great for creating fast and easily 3D design layouts and sketches targeted at presentation and visualization purposes.
Although this may be in point of fact true, its not the way I end up using SU.
As an industrial designer I design furniture using SU and often will send parts to be made by our model shop directly from SU data. The parts are from a variety of materials: wood, steel, machined plastic, vacu-formed plastic and so on. I can send DXFs to be cut on the laser and then the drawings to the guys on the brakes to make the bends, then off for weldments and so on. The accuracy of the files are off into 4 decimal places which is as good as the laser can deliver so I don't worry too much about things failing to fit up.
I find I am able to use SU across all the different segments of the design process, not just at the very beginning or the very end, its not just for pretty pictures anymore...
-
Honolulu wrote
@unknownuser said:Su entities are primarily poly-lines and (to my knowledge) the ports can not include non-entity properties between CAD programs. Thus if you change a window location, or material in a Su model (or or in a CAD file), it will not correctly revise the other drawing. .... Any entity added to the drawing after is ported will not be related to the replaced component.
Sprit STI is a cad program that does automatically update the Su model and vice versa.
http://www.softtech.com/0409/11700.html -
Thanks for the link.
-
Linea
I had a look at sti spirit, and it looks interesting. Can't seem to find out a cost for it though - I suspect it is expensive, as things usually are when they won't tell you how much it costs!David
-
I agree. In addition there was not much information to evaluate the capability of the program to create, and maintain production drawings. I also did not notice any "User Programming Language".
Too bad for me that I am too lazy, and busy to request, and evaluate a trial of the program.
-
David, Honolulu
I have never managed to find out the price for definate, I read on a forum that it is 900 euros. If you email STI they will send you a demo. The demo looked good actually, slightly unusual interface for a CAD program, but from the time I had with the demo I think it could be a good choice. Spirit did used to get mentioned alot on the old forum, so some people here probably use it and can tell you more.
There used to be some tutorials on Youtube too, but the only one I can find now is in spanish. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-ACbHP16HC4
-
@honoluludesktop said:
Modeling, and visualization only account for a portion of the schematic design process. This phase represents about 10-15% of the effort that goes into the Architect's effort to build a building. If 3D could replace 2D drawings in construction documents, it would have been done a long time ago. Architects have the ability to draw in 3D (perspective and axonometric views) without computers, and are not in love with the effort it takes to ornithologically project a building's views.
Although i agree that current architectural practice is based on 2D drawings as construction information, I'm starting to feel that 3D information is/will take a bigger share of graphic communication with contractors.
I am doing a very small scale job right now, and am pretty much using Sketchup as the primary package. That is to say that I have decided to build every element (floor slab, screed, hardcore, stud, cladding joist, roof deck, roof membrane) in Sketchup. I then take dimensioned elevations and sections directly from it and put it into LayOut. I export sections from Sketchup into Vectorworks to create the plan, and draw details. I use Sketchup's orthogonal views, and by turning different layers on/off I can show the structure, foundations, and cladding separately. All this is made very easy, and if I change the model, then all the drawings are updated to register the change.
I also think builders appreciate 3D information, since it is so easy to read. I think 3D information is far better at communicating an overview of the phases of project, 2D information is only necessary for details and plans, perhaps.
I guess what I am saying is that 3D drawings have the potential to become the primary communication medium, though I can never say that 2D doesn't have its place. I am relatively young, and still discovering how to do architecture, and I am being pulled to 3D more and more in the production of construction information.
Advertisement