CAD Managers

Reply
*Pohlgeers, kevin
Message 1 of 7 (31 Views)

ADT and VIZ complaints (get your coffee)

31 Views, 6 Replies
06-21-2000 07:56 PM
Hi, I know this may not be the place for this but I want to see if
others are having great success with it or am I just missing something.

OK, I've been using ADT for a while now and it seems that once you
really get into the real world situations you quickly find the software
limitations. I really tried using it and I know a lot about how it
works. I don't need more training but I just can't seem to get it to do
what I want half the time. I can draw a window quicker with solids than
having to create a profile and then trying to get it to work with the
limited window styles or having it jump around on the wall when I want
it to sit still.

My current project, I am creating a building in 3d using ADT and I'm
linking it with VIZ. However I keep having problems with objects that
don't want to keep normals unified or sometimes the walls get where they
don't clean up, and this just gets frustrating.

So unfortunately I had to just explode all the ADT stuff and just create
my walls with solids. It really is quicker because you don't have to
keep messing with them. Once you draw them they stay solid. And now the
solid editing tools in 2000 make them so much easier to work with now.

I guess I'm just venting because it's just not there yet. It's not a
seamless transition like they lead to believe. You always see the
resellers give these perfect little examples and say "It's just that
easy to create a drawing". Well, their not Architects or Designers they
don't really design all day long and know how something is really built
to see that there are limitations.

I just want people to be aware of this because I see a lot of people
lately saying their considering moving to ADT and that their trying to
convince their boss into buying it. I'm not saying don't buy it. I
really think you should so you can get a jump on the future of how we
are going to be producing. But don't switch everybody just yet. There is
such a big learning curve that you will loose production (time and
money) with it.
Get only one copy to start getting familiar with it.

OK, on the 3D visualization side of things, I am not impressed with VIZ
either. I have been using 3D Studio since it first came out (R1) and I
was even a partner as a reseller in the early Nineties. It may be great
if you are making a game or something else but for architecture, not
yet. Why can't they build in the tools we really need. Like having more
than just 5 brick materials to work with. I bought, Accurender and it
has all of the architectural type materials you could ever need and they
are easy to modify. Why can't VIZ?

Accurender also comes with a lot of really great looking plants. And I
mean great looking. VIZ you have to buy an add on. WHY? With it's price
it should be there.

One other thing that really makes Accurender so much better is that when
you want to add a material to something you just say "I want this
material on this layer" and it's done. You don't have to mess with
scaling the mapping or anything. In VIZ adding brick material on a wall
and then selecting the map scaler you never know if the brick is the
right size. In Accurender it's perfect every time and you can actually
tell it the size you want for the bricks.

Anyway, ADT and VIZ are just not there yet. We should be when everyone
else is passing them up with better features. I think maybe nobody at
AutoDESK has every tried to use their stuff in real world situations. Oh
I know others have, I've seen great work out there, but I'm sure their
spending more time than they need to creating it.

I'm not sure I will ever upgrade my VIZ again. It's just not worth what
their asking.

Whew,
Kevin Pohlgeers
*Dillon, Matt
Message 2 of 7 (31 Views)

Re: ADT and VIZ complaints (get your coffee)

06-22-2000 05:41 PM in reply to: *Pohlgeers, kevin
Oh boy....

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:56:42 +0000, kevin Pohlgeers
wrote:

>Hi, I know this may not be the place for this but I want to see if
>others are having great success with it or am I just missing something.
Yep. The latter...

>OK, I've been using ADT for a while now and it seems that once you
>really get into the real world situations you quickly find the software
>limitations. I really tried using it and I know a lot about how it
>works. I don't need more training but I just can't seem to get it to do
>what I want half the time. I can draw a window quicker with solids than
>having to create a profile and then trying to get it to work with the
>limited window styles or having it jump around on the wall when I want
>it to sit still.
Sounds to me like you actually might need a little more training. The
window / door is anchored to the wall. It's a curve anchor. You can
position it by right clicking on the window and selecting:
Reposition Within: to easily set it's position relative to the wall
width.
Reposition Along: to easily set it's postition relative to the wall
length (distance from an end, etc.)
Set anchored end: to determine which end it's "tied" to in case you
decide to change the wall length. (It has to be tied to one of them).

>My current project, I am creating a building in 3d using ADT and I'm
>linking it with VIZ. However I keep having problems with objects that
>don't want to keep normals unified or sometimes the walls get where they
>don't clean up, and this just gets frustrating.
First, in VIZ, who the heck cares if the walls clean up? You're going
to render it, right?

That aside, a couple of suggestions on the normal thing:
1) Set ISAVEPERCENT to 0.
2) Set PROXYGRAPHICS to 0.
3) When you link, turn on "Unify Normals".
4) If one, two and three above fail (and they might), use 2-sided
materials or turn on "Force 2 sided" when rendering. Yes, this causes
performance issues on large scenes. However if you're rendering an
entire ADT model, you already HAVE performance problems. Your face
count will be somewhere around the orbit of Saturn.

Also, if none of the above is satisfactory, you can rename the
ADTRANS.DLU file to something else. This will take you back to VIZ R2
linking mechanisms which will remove the face normal issues. But it
will also kill off any of the VIZ R3 linking improvements, like
placing ADT objects on their respective layers, and allowing access to
individual objects. But it does work.

>So unfortunately I had to just explode all the ADT stuff and just create
>my walls with solids. It really is quicker because you don't have to
>keep messing with them.
Ouch. No kidding, you don't have to keep messing with them. You can't.

>Once you draw them they stay solid. And now the
>solid editing tools in 2000 make them so much easier to work with now.
>
>I guess I'm just venting because it's just not there yet. It's not a
>seamless transition like they lead to believe. You always see the
>resellers give these perfect little examples and say "It's just that
>easy to create a drawing". Well, their not Architects or Designers they
>don't really design all day long and know how something is really built
>to see that there are limitations.
I am an architect and I was once considered a pretty good designer
(although admittedly I don't design much any more, except as an
exercise) Texas Board of Architectural Examiners, license number
13949. That established. You're WRONG. Limitations, yes. Show me a
package that doesn't have them. But the link between VIZ and ADT is
solid. I used 3D Studio back in the R2-R3-R4 days as well. There is no
comparison. VIZ beats it hands down, if you know what you're doing.

>I just want people to be aware of this because I see a lot of people
>lately saying their considering moving to ADT and that their trying to
>convince their boss into buying it. I'm not saying don't buy it. I
>really think you should so you can get a jump on the future of how we
>are going to be producing. But don't switch everybody just yet. There is
>such a big learning curve that you will loose production (time and
>money) with it.
>Get only one copy to start getting familiar with it.

>OK, on the 3D visualization side of things, I am not impressed with VIZ
>either. I have been using 3D Studio since it first came out (R1) and I
>was even a partner as a reseller in the early Nineties. It may be great
>if you are making a game or something else but for architecture, not
>yet. Why can't they build in the tools we really need. Like having more
>than just 5 brick materials to work with. I bought, Accurender and it
>has all of the architectural type materials you could ever need and they
>are easy to modify. Why can't VIZ?
Games are for MAX. Not VIZ. How many brick materials do you need? If
the ones provided for you aren't enough, buy a digital camera and
create the ones you need. If you used 3D Studio, can you tell me how
many pre-built materials IT came with? (Hint - the answer is less than
one).

And easy to modify? If anything, there are TOO MANY options with VIZ.
Puleeeze.

>Accurender also comes with a lot of really great looking plants. And I
>mean great looking. VIZ you have to buy an add on. WHY? With it's price
>it should be there.
>
>One other thing that really makes Accurender so much better is that when
>you want to add a material to something you just say "I want this
>material on this layer" and it's done. You don't have to mess with
>scaling the mapping or anything. In VIZ adding brick material on a wall
>and then selecting the map scaler you never know if the brick is the
>right size. In Accurender it's perfect every time and you can actually
>tell it the size you want for the bricks.
If you understand how to work with materials in VIZ, you can get the
mapping as exact as you want. And I would really like to see any
product with a mapping tool better than the map scaler. Really. If
Accurender has something that will handle a TEXTURE map better than
the map scaler, it should be priced a LOT higher than it is.

>Anyway, ADT and VIZ are just not there yet. We should be when everyone
>else is passing them up with better features. I think maybe nobody at
>AutoDESK has every tried to use their stuff in real world situations. Oh
>I know others have, I've seen great work out there, but I'm sure their
>spending more time than they need to creating it.
Can you give some examples of specific products that are "passing them
up" (and make sure that they aren't products that aren't "being passed
up") and can you provide specific feature examples, with ACCURATE
details of those aspects of the products that are superior?

>I'm not sure I will ever upgrade my VIZ again. It's just not worth what
>their asking.
Good idea. I suggest you look into AutoShade. I betcha there's a few
copies around that somebody might be willing to let you play with.

>Whew,
Indeed. I couldn't have said it better....

If you like, by the way, I can post a few images rendered in VIZ,
consisting of ENTIRELY ADT objects, unexploded, that I had no problem
with whatsoever...

**********************************************
Please keep technical issues to the newsgroups
**********************************************

Matt Dillon
Member: Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program

The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
*Pohlgeers, kevin
Message 3 of 7 (31 Views)

Re:

06-22-2000 07:08 PM in reply to: *Pohlgeers, kevin
Thanks for your reply. Maybe I just needed to here that I may need a
little more training.
However, there is a point where having to go through so many settings to
get something to work just doesn't beat the old way of doing something.
I know you say there is nothing faster, but I'm extreamly fast.

Why aren't there more features in VIZ for architectural designing? Like
better ways to apply materials accuratly and giving us more standard
block. I mean really have you ever used the walls doors or windows in
VIZ to get something done? And how many office desk and chairs do you
really need on the CD.
I still have a big problem with scaling in VIZ. Just today I drew two
cylinders one much shorter than the other and the shorter one said that
it's length was greater that the longer one on the side panel uner edit
mesh. I guess I need more training in VIZ.

Well, thanks for taking the time to respond. Don't get me wrong I'm very
faithfull to AutoDESK. It has given me a great carrer of thirteen years
now.

However there are programs that do work much better than ADT for example
I hate to mention Microstation Triforma. I totally dispise that software
but there is a guy in our office that knows it well and has shown me
things that ADT probably will not be able to do for the next five years.
Like drawing roofs, it draws the roof framing and is very detailed with
lots of options. ADT needs a way to merge roof objects together. I hate
having to stretch one roof way into the other just to get it to look
right from the outside, it wouldn't be built like that.

Oh, I would love to see what you have competed with ADT and VIZ. I just
finished mine today that I did with just solids.

Thanks again,
Kevin Pohlgeers
*Dillon, Matt
Message 4 of 7 (31 Views)

Re:

06-23-2000 05:43 AM in reply to: *Pohlgeers, kevin
In CF - no solids, no 3D faces. Just ADT objects. Mass elements,
walls, doors and windows. I used custom window and door display blocks
and *gasp* curtain walls (but don't tell anybody - ADT isn't supposed
to do that).

The furniture in the lobby DID come from VIZ, but everything else is
in AutoCAD. I typically don't use the VIZ walls doors and windows, as
I tend to use it as an AutoCAD visualization tool. The geometry exists
for the most part in AutoCAD, the image comes from VIZ.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 02:08:52 +0000, kevin Pohlgeers
wrote:

>Oh, I would love to see what you have competed with ADT and VIZ. I just
>finished mine today that I did with just solids.

**********************************************
Please keep technical issues to the newsgroups
**********************************************

Matt Dillon
Member: Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program

The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com
*Rojas, Hector
Message 5 of 7 (31 Views)

Re:

06-23-2000 07:09 AM in reply to: *Pohlgeers, kevin
Matt Dillon wrote in message
news:39565ae6.938980@discussion.autodesk.com...
> In CF - no solids, no 3D faces. Just ADT objects. Mass elements,

What the heck is CF ?
*Martin, Jason
Message 6 of 7 (31 Views)

Re:

06-23-2000 07:10 AM in reply to: *Pohlgeers, kevin
Customer Files
Hector Rojas wrote in message
news:ef24eda.3@WebX.SaUCah8kaAW...
>
> Matt Dillon wrote in message
> news:39565ae6.938980@discussion.autodesk.com...
> > In CF - no solids, no 3D faces. Just ADT objects. Mass elements,
>
> What the heck is CF ?
>
*Dillon, Matt
Message 7 of 7 (31 Views)

Re:

06-23-2000 10:49 AM in reply to: *Pohlgeers, kevin
Sorry - CF:

http://discussion.autodesk.com/autodesk.autocad.customer-files

or

news://discussion.autodesk.com/autodesk.autocad.customer-files

This is where you should go to post file attachments.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:09:57 +0000, "Hector Rojas"
wrote:

>
>Matt Dillon wrote in message
>news:39565ae6.938980@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> In CF - no solids, no 3D faces. Just ADT objects. Mass elements,
>
>What the heck is CF ?

**********************************************
Please keep technical issues to the newsgroups
**********************************************

Matt Dillon
Member: Autodesk Discussion Forum Moderator Program

The D.C. CADD Company, Inc.
http://www.dccadd.com

You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements
Manufacturing CAD & IT Manager Resource
Additional information for installing, licensing & deploying Inventor, the Product Design Suites and Factory Design Suites.

Need installation help?

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

Ask the Community


Up & Ready Blog

Boldly Install, Configure and Deploy Autodesk Software.

AutodeskHelp Blog

Your one-stop shop for the latest solutions, breaking news, and behind the scenes access to the world of Autodesk support.

Connect with Us

Twitter

Pinterest

Blog

Youtube