AutoCAD MEP General Discussion

AutoCAD MEP General Discussion

Reply
*Orr, Gary J.
Message 1 of 11 (117 Views)

Implementation poll

117 Views, 10 Replies
07-28-2003 01:43 AM
Am doing research into implementation of ABS04. Would like to see what has
been working and what has not. If any can spare the time I would like to get
some implementation stats...
-
1) Are you using the supplied default configuration for menus, toolbars, and
menu palletts; or are you "reverting" to something closer to the ABS3 menus,
while accessing custom menu palletts for added functionality; or are you
"reverting" to something closer to the ABS3 menus and leaving the menu
palletts alone?.
-
1a) What training issues have you encountered due to your decision?
-
2) Are you converting to *stb's per the defaults in ABS04; or are you
staying with *.ctb's; or have you scrapped both in favor of individual
lineweights for individual entities?
-
2a) What collorbation issues have you seen due to this decision?
-
-
Some background questions to help seperate threads by usage:
1) What is the size of your firm? (ours consists of 130+/- persons).
2) Are you a multi-discipline firm? (ours consists of Architects, Mechanical
Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Landscape
Architecture, and Civil Engineering)
3) Do you work on Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Medical, Education,
or Government projects? (ours does all of the former)
4) How many of your projects require coordination/collaboration with firms
outside of your office? (ours is at about 20%+/-)

Here's hoping for the best...



--
Gary J. Orr
CADD Manager
(218) 279-2421
Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com

LHB Engineers and Architects
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500
Duluth, Mn 55802
(218) 727-8446
www.LHBcorp.com
*Andrew
Message 2 of 11 (117 Views)

Re: Implementation poll

07-28-2003 07:36 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
We are in the process of implementing ABS04.

1) Trying to stick to pallettes for the most part but rearranging them to
fit my preferences.

1a) We are a small firm <10 employees so I am learning the software and
will teach everyone else.

2) We are convering to .stb's. Much more flexibility.

2a) We expect a lot of collaboration issues. We will give each architect
the choice of : a. using our dwg files with object enablers, b) receiving
dwf files, or c) receiving pdf files.

Company background:
1) <10 employees
2) Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing
3) Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Medical, Education, and Government
Projects
4) About 80-90% of our jobs we need to collaborate out of house.



"Gary J. Orr" wrote in message
news:CCAC4A9F76A9AB0D416340EEE063733A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Am doing research into implementation of ABS04. Would like to see what has
> been working and what has not. If any can spare the time I would like to
get
> some implementation stats...
> -
> 1) Are you using the supplied default configuration for menus, toolbars,
and
> menu palletts; or are you "reverting" to something closer to the ABS3
menus,
> while accessing custom menu palletts for added functionality; or are you
> "reverting" to something closer to the ABS3 menus and leaving the menu
> palletts alone?.
> -
> 1a) What training issues have you encountered due to your decision?
> -
> 2) Are you converting to *stb's per the defaults in ABS04; or are you
> staying with *.ctb's; or have you scrapped both in favor of individual
> lineweights for individual entities?
> -
> 2a) What collorbation issues have you seen due to this decision?
> -
> -
> Some background questions to help seperate threads by usage:
> 1) What is the size of your firm? (ours consists of 130+/- persons).
> 2) Are you a multi-discipline firm? (ours consists of Architects,
Mechanical
> Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Landscape
> Architecture, and Civil Engineering)
> 3) Do you work on Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Medical, Education,
> or Government projects? (ours does all of the former)
> 4) How many of your projects require coordination/collaboration with firms
> outside of your office? (ours is at about 20%+/-)
>
> Here's hoping for the best...
>
>
>
> --
> Gary J. Orr
> CADD Manager
> (218) 279-2421
> Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com
>
> LHB Engineers and Architects
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500
> Duluth, Mn 55802
> (218) 727-8446
> www.LHBcorp.com
>
>
Distinguished Contributor
jmcfaddn
Posts: 399
Registered: ‎12-01-2003
Message 3 of 11 (117 Views)

Re:

07-28-2003 11:02 PM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
Do you find the software to be as usefull as they market it to be? My experiences with this software makes it hard to believe that it could be used profitably in the consulting field.
*Andrew
Message 4 of 11 (117 Views)

Re:

07-29-2003 01:42 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
The short answer is "No".  The long answer,
from my viewpoint, is from ABS1 through ABS3 the software wasn't
functional.  And I must say I was quite po'd at Autodesk for forcing us to
upgrade to a software that wasn't ready to be released.  We had to buy the
first 3 releases to protect our investment in Softdesk but the software was
loaded only long enough to determine it still wasn't ready and then placed on
the shelf.  With ABS04,  I think the software still has limitations
but it is getting much closer.  We still use R14 with SDSK and we can't
continue like this much longer, so we are currently setting up ABS04 to give it
a try.  It seems the biggest limitation is lack of content.  I know
all the tools for creating content are included.  However, a small firm
like ours doesn't have the extra time for someone (me) to spend weeks creating
all the content we need.  That is why I am a big supporter for having a
newsgroup for sharing custom content.

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Do
you find the software to be as usefull as they market it to be? My experiences
with this software makes it hard to believe that it could be used profitably
in the consulting field.
*Orr, Gary J.
Message 5 of 11 (117 Views)

Re:

07-29-2003 06:45 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
We have 11 users in our firm that use either
the electrical side or the mech/plum side. Their feedback is mixed. On the
one hand they all have issue with the "severe limitations" of the previous
releases and are going forward on tippie-toes for R-and-D of this one. On the
other hand, the plumbing/mech users are also making a lot of noise about the ADT
users not using the 3-d capabilities their software...

All in all we feel (like others) that the SDSK
product should have been maintained until the ABS product could reach the same
abilities :-).


--
Gary J. Orr
CADD Manager
(218) 279-2421

href="mailto:Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com">Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com

 

LHB Engineers and Architects
21 West Superior Street, Suite
500
Duluth, Mn 55802
(218) 727-8446

href="http://www.LHBcorp.com">www.LHBcorp.com


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Do
you find the software to be as usefull as they market it to be? My experiences
with this software makes it hard to believe that it could be used profitably
in the consulting field.
*Andrew
Message 6 of 11 (117 Views)

Re:

07-29-2003 06:58 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
Gary hits a very useful point about ADT and 3D
Architectural.  The building model we are supposed to be creating with this
software depends on what we receive from our clients.  Out of 10-15
architects we do business with, only one of them uses ADT to its 3D
capabilities.  It will be strange drawing 3D building services on a 2D
floor plan.

 

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

We have 11 users in our firm that use either
the electrical side or the mech/plum side. Their feedback is mixed. On
the one hand they all have issue with the "severe limitations" of the previous
releases and are going forward on tippie-toes for R-and-D of this one. On the
other hand, the plumbing/mech users are also making a lot of noise about the
ADT users not using the 3-d capabilities their software...

All in all we feel (like others) that
the SDSK product should have been maintained until the ABS product could
reach the same abilities :-).


--
Gary J. Orr
CADD Manager
(218) 279-2421

href="mailto:Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com">Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com

 

LHB Engineers and Architects
21 West Superior Street, Suite
500
Duluth, Mn 55802
(218) 727-8446

href="http://www.LHBcorp.com">www.LHBcorp.com


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Do
you find the software to be as usefull as they market it to be? My
experiences with this software makes it hard to believe that it could be
used profitably in the consulting field.
Valued Contributor
bil-with-one-L
Posts: 89
Registered: ‎08-04-2003
Message 7 of 11 (117 Views)

Re: Implementation poll

07-30-2003 12:10 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
I'm not sure that my input will be useful but I'm following this thread and enjoying the topic and thought I'd throw in my two cents. -- we are an HVAC/Plumbing contractor with about 20 employees. CAD was being purchased for Coordination purposes only, but the VP thought he could perhaps create an alternative source of income for the business by not only doing our own CAD work but others as well. -- Most of our work is Educational/Medical/Commercial. -- Ultimately our goal was to have as much external outside collaboration as possible... but we are just beginning this effort and so only time will tell. -- as for my personal opinion of the tool... I have no background in either MEP or prior versions of ABS or the SDSK product.. so I say this with far less knowledge and experience than most of you probably have. -- I find the documentation to be lacking in useful information. I find the tutorials to be weak at best. There is definately a need for a larger library of standard MvParts. Not to mention predefined pipe styles like for instance hubless pipe. That seems like it should be really common. -- on the other hand... with very little experience in either ADT or ABS I did create a two story structure relatively quick all in 3D... Walls, Windows, Doors, Stairs, Fence, Floors, Duct, Furnace, Trench Drains, Cold water piping, Gas piping and Drain piping. -- I'm sure that doesn't sound like much to someone documenting an entire public school buildout, or new hospital wing... but considering my lack of knowledge I feel that ABS4 gave me many of the tools and an intuitive interface. I can see much need for improvement... but can admit that my own lack of familiarity was as much a contributer to the many problems I faced as the tool itself was. Had I a greater task than this small water testing facility on my hands I would had to have resorted to vanilla ACAD to create the drawings that I needed. I feel much stronger with the tool for my investment of time on this project and hope to continue to use this as often as possible.
New Member
KyleBernhardt
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎07-30-2003
Message 8 of 11 (117 Views)

Re:

07-30-2003 02:05 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
Well we all seem to be in the similar situations with this product. I'm working at a small MEP consultant (15 employees) and we're looking into the implementation of ABS4 for all CAD users in the office. I'm the person heading up the task since I'm the computer savy one in the office. I've found that ABS4 appears to hold unbelievable potential, but I'm not seeing that potential with the existing software. I must echo the rest of you in saying that the part library is limited. I've created a mechanical room with ABS4 and found a number of instances where the correct size or configuration of and MvPart does not exist. Also I've found that many times the part doesn't exist. I wish the major manufacturers of equipment would get their heads out of the sand on this one and create some MvPart libraries. If you look on the online design center, you see that Carrier has put up their rooftop units for download. If we had their whole product line I'm sure we'd spec them on almost every job.

I think that the part catalog will be the achilles heel for this software and Autodesk needs to get moving on this.

I do like the layering system and the organization that comes from creating designs using objects, but there is obviously not much that has been done outside of ADT on that end.

I'm going to be teaching our other employees how to use this program soon, and I anticipate a good amount of time to get up to speed.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions.

Kyle Bernhardt
Mechanical Engineer
Dagher Engineering
New York, NY 10006
Member
gnation
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎07-30-2003
Message 9 of 11 (117 Views)

Re: Implementation poll

07-30-2003 11:48 PM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
Gary,
I run my own consultancy with just one employee, me. I have been using AutoCAD since Release 10 days so I have a fair experience with the products history. I am also located in Australia so much of the content that comes with the package does not fully apply here, but I will give you my opinions.

In the location I am in, you have to be able to do everything, mechanical, electrical and plumbing (I am qualified as a mechanical engineer).

I work on all sorts and sizes of projects, single and multiple residential, commercial, industrial and pharmaceutical. I have generally found that the more complex the project, the better ABS is a getting to a solution. The amount of information that can be stored and more importantly used, is amazing. My theory is the more information you give to a contractor, the better chance they have of getting it right.

Virtually all of my projects require collaboration of some sort. The only exception is usually the pharmaceutical mechanical systems. These are for one particular client and it usually involves fitting the system to an existing building. In these cases I model the full building in architectural 3D first.

You should know that I have never used AutoCAD straight out of the box. I have always carried out extensive customisation to get it to do what I want it to. And pretty well everyone else did too (or got some computer geek in the back room to do it). The bad news is I now no longer use any of the utilities I have created - its now all in the product itself


1. I am staying with the tool pallets and menus with ABS04. They are reasonably easy to customise, so you can place your commonly used tools very close to your work area. I have the additional menus loaded as I use architectural content to create a rough building model if the architect supplies a 2D only drawing. You still need a good screen resolution with the palettes though. I think an absolute minimum of 1280 x 1024 is required, bigger is always better. I use 1400 x 1050 and find it excellent (dual screens are also excellent).

1a. I train myself. The manual steps you though a few of the basics to give you the idea. There are lots of little tricks to make life easier, some are just hard to find.

2. I am actually swapping back to ctb's. I swapped to stb's in release 14 as they allowed you to change layer colours to get a better representation on the screen, For example if you were working on a mechanical system, the building walls and structure could be a dark colour on the screen to appear less visually strong, the mechanical would be in bright colours. The display representations have fixed this problem, you can create differing display representations for your needs. So far I have found this to be more flexible the stb's.

2a. Collaborations issues have not been a problem. Where I work, every company has its own standards, AIA is used as a rough base sometimes, but only roughly. It goes with any system you have, document it well and pass your documentation onto whoever you work with. 90% of the time whatever you produce as a drawing will be changed to suit someone else's needs anyway. I have found it handy to create a directory with all the fonts, linotypes, plot styles etc in it. Everyone gets a copy at the start of a project and it gets burnt onto any CD's.

As a summary, I think the product is excellent. It can provide you with a massive amount of information on the system your are designing if you want it to, and it does it easily. I work very closely with the contractors, they are always asking me to check clearances and exact offsets to install equipment because they know it will be accurate. Yes, there are issues like the lack of MVParts (try using it in Australia) but is also has a good base. There will be a lot you need to create, depending on your main work areas, but it is likely to be in the mechanical field (you can get by with the others quit happily). Give yourself a few hours a week, prioritise a list of MVParts to create and slowly work at it.
I love the product, I have found that I can generally complete a project is a similar time to what I used to and that time includes making the MVParts that I need. The second time around the time that can be saved is significant.

Hope this has helped.
Gavin
*Orr, Gary J.
Message 10 of 11 (117 Views)

Re: Implementation poll

07-31-2003 02:54 AM in reply to: *Orr, Gary J.
Well,
The responses here are much better than those from my cross-post to ADT04.

Let's keep them coming... and Thanx to those of you that have already
posted.


--
Gary J. Orr
CADD Manager
(218) 279-2421
Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com

LHB Engineers and Architects
21 West Superior Street, Suite 500
Duluth, Mn 55802
(218) 727-8446
www.LHBcorp.com
"Gary J. Orr" wrote in message
news:CCAC4A9F76A9AB0D416340EEE063733A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Am doing research into implementation of ABS04. Would like to see what has
> been working and what has not. If any can spare the time I would like to
get
> some implementation stats...
> -
> 1) Are you using the supplied default configuration for menus, toolbars,
and
> menu palletts; or are you "reverting" to something closer to the ABS3
menus,
> while accessing custom menu palletts for added functionality; or are you
> "reverting" to something closer to the ABS3 menus and leaving the menu
> palletts alone?.
> -
> 1a) What training issues have you encountered due to your decision?
> -
> 2) Are you converting to *stb's per the defaults in ABS04; or are you
> staying with *.ctb's; or have you scrapped both in favor of individual
> lineweights for individual entities?
> -
> 2a) What collorbation issues have you seen due to this decision?
> -
> -
> Some background questions to help seperate threads by usage:
> 1) What is the size of your firm? (ours consists of 130+/- persons).
> 2) Are you a multi-discipline firm? (ours consists of Architects,
Mechanical
> Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Landscape
> Architecture, and Civil Engineering)
> 3) Do you work on Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Medical, Education,
> or Government projects? (ours does all of the former)
> 4) How many of your projects require coordination/collaboration with firms
> outside of your office? (ours is at about 20%+/-)
>
> Here's hoping for the best...
>
>
>
> --
> Gary J. Orr
> CADD Manager
> (218) 279-2421
> Gary.Orr@LHBcorp.com
>
> LHB Engineers and Architects
> 21 West Superior Street, Suite 500
> Duluth, Mn 55802
> (218) 727-8446
> www.LHBcorp.com
>
>
Announcements
Are you familiar with the Autodesk Expert Elites? The Expert Elite program is made up of customers that help other customers by sharing knowledge and exemplifying an engaging style of collaboration. To learn more, please visit our Expert Elite website.
Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.

New AutoCAD MEP Category!

The AutoCAD MEP forum has moved into it's very own category page, and can no longer be found within the Additional Product Forums.