Autodesk Technology Managers Forum
Share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage with fellow CAD/BIM Managers.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Autodesk: Think aggressive

19 REPLIES 19
Reply
Message 1 of 20
Anonymous
260 Views, 19 Replies

Autodesk: Think aggressive

Last few years we, AutoCAD users, have experienced number of "brand-new"
things from, Autodesk.

Around the August Autodesk usually announced that certain versions of
AutoCAD products will be discontinued from coming-year-January-15th then
army of Autodesk product dealers attack to all architectural, engineering
and drafting companies to sell their new products. It is, as usual,
faster-better-and-extraordinary. This circle usually goes about 2 years,
then it repeats (since 1998-99). Before companies do their payments to
Autodesk they realize that new version is just came up to the market (nice
disappointments).

Autodesk usually emphasizes that from 15th of January there will be no
technical support. Does anyone get any technical help directly from
Autodesk? I haven't heard of; I have tried few times and still waiting for
the answer.

So, why we buy the new versions? As usual, stuff training and full
transition to the new version takes about 1 year, then some employees leave
some new ones come and this takes forever to get the job done; until the new
version.

My point is "THERE IS NO NEED TO BUY A NEW VERSION OF AUTOCAD"; Just one for
translation. The entire projects we do in-house and only few "dummy"
consultants walk with "technology", whose drawings we need to convert to out
version. The software overhead expenses is to match these days to spend
every year 70K-150K, for midsize companies.
19 REPLIES 19
Message 2 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"gaghapar" wrote

>My point is "THERE IS NO NEED TO BUY A NEW VERSION
>OF AUTOCAD"; Just one for translation. The entire projects we
> do in-house and only few "dummy" consultants walk with "technology"
>, whose drawings we need to convert to out version. The software
> overhead expenses is to match these days to spend every year
> 70K-150K, for midsize companies.

Last time I checked, there was nobody with a gun to your head "forcing you
to upgrade". You are free to stick with R12, R13, whatever. AFAIK, the
license never expires, only the ability to upgrade said license. I know a
firm still on the board - using Leroy R1. Also, AutoCAD is not the only CAD
software out there believe it or not. Check out the competition.
Message 3 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

>Around the August Autodesk usually announced that certain versions of
>AutoCAD products will be discontinued from coming-year-January-15th

No such thing has ever happened. AutoDESK announces that after a certain
date, discounts for upgrading will no longer be in effect.


>then
>army of Autodesk product dealers attack to all architectural, engineering
>and drafting companies to sell their new products.

If you have evidence of such, report such dealers to AutoDESK. ADESK frowns
severly on resellers "attacking" their client base.


>Autodesk usually emphasizes that from 15th of January there will be no
>technical support.

Again, never happened. Reseller provide technical support and can chose to
extend said support to any level of AutoCAD they choose.


>So, why we buy the new versions?

Well for us the answer is simple, we make more money with the enhanced
efficiency of the newer products.


>As usual, stuff training and full
>transition to the new version takes about 1 year,

Then you need better CAD managers.


>My point is "THERE IS NO NEED TO BUY A NEW VERSION OF AUTOCAD";

If it doesn't make you more money, then I wouldn't upgrade either. But
understand that the entire CAD world is moving at breakneck speed toward 3D,
and you may just stagnant yourself out of business.


>The software overhead expenses is to match these days to spend
>every year 70K-150K, for midsize companies.

Which for us is the cost of one senior designer. Actually our software
upgrades costs are closer to $250K for AutoCAD (200 seats), so it's the cost
of 2.25 senior designers. Roughly 1% to 2% of our engineering payroll, or
less than 1% of our entire payroll. Smoke breaks cost us more.
Message 4 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Hey Randall;

One more thing we agree on, I see.

We'll have to let the disagreeable parts remain unrecalled. 🙂

--
Don Reichle
"King Of Work-Arounds"
"The only thing worse
than training your staff,
and having them leave is -
not training your staff,
and having them stay."
Courtesy Graphics Solution Providers
--------------------------------------
LDT3/CD3
IntelP4-2.4
1GB RAM
Intel 64MB


"Randall Culp" wrote in message
news:4840851@discussion.autodesk.com...
>Around the August Autodesk usually announced that certain versions of
>AutoCAD products will be discontinued from coming-year-January-15th

No such thing has ever happened. AutoDESK announces that after a certain
date, discounts for upgrading will no longer be in effect.


>then
>army of Autodesk product dealers attack to all architectural, engineering
>and drafting companies to sell their new products.

If you have evidence of such, report such dealers to AutoDESK. ADESK frowns
severly on resellers "attacking" their client base.


>Autodesk usually emphasizes that from 15th of January there will be no
>technical support.

Again, never happened. Reseller provide technical support and can chose to
extend said support to any level of AutoCAD they choose.


>So, why we buy the new versions?

Well for us the answer is simple, we make more money with the enhanced
efficiency of the newer products.


>As usual, stuff training and full
>transition to the new version takes about 1 year,

Then you need better CAD managers.


>My point is "THERE IS NO NEED TO BUY A NEW VERSION OF AUTOCAD";

If it doesn't make you more money, then I wouldn't upgrade either. But
understand that the entire CAD world is moving at breakneck speed toward 3D,
and you may just stagnant yourself out of business.


>The software overhead expenses is to match these days to spend
>every year 70K-150K, for midsize companies.

Which for us is the cost of one senior designer. Actually our software
upgrades costs are closer to $250K for AutoCAD (200 seats), so it's the cost
of 2.25 senior designers. Roughly 1% to 2% of our engineering payroll, or
less than 1% of our entire payroll. Smoke breaks cost us more.
Message 5 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

Well. Have to say that we are still using a2k. Even though we have 2004.
Really want to deploy it. Even began to rework the menus etc. Simply don't
have the time!
Am considering when to do it. Never thought of getting in some lisper
before. Now it looks like we'll need to. Exactly where to find one in our
little burg, well...



--
Princess Jamie,

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
- Anais Nin

"gaghapar" wrote in message
news:4840760@discussion.autodesk.com...
Last few years we, AutoCAD users, have experienced number of "brand-new"
things from, Autodesk.

Around the August Autodesk usually announced that certain versions of
AutoCAD products will be discontinued from coming-year-January-15th then
army of Autodesk product dealers attack to all architectural, engineering
and drafting companies to sell their new products. It is, as usual,
faster-better-and-extraordinary. This circle usually goes about 2 years,
then it repeats (since 1998-99). Before companies do their payments to
Autodesk they realize that new version is just came up to the market (nice
disappointments).

Autodesk usually emphasizes that from 15th of January there will be no
technical support. Does anyone get any technical help directly from
Autodesk? I haven't heard of; I have tried few times and still waiting for
the answer.

So, why we buy the new versions? As usual, stuff training and full
transition to the new version takes about 1 year, then some employees leave
some new ones come and this takes forever to get the job done; until the new
version.

My point is "THERE IS NO NEED TO BUY A NEW VERSION OF AUTOCAD"; Just one for
translation. The entire projects we do in-house and only few "dummy"
consultants walk with "technology", whose drawings we need to convert to out
version. The software overhead expenses is to match these days to spend
every year 70K-150K, for midsize companies.
Message 6 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"Randall Culp" wrote
> the entire CAD world is moving at breakneck speed toward 3D

Well, speaking from a small-market AEC design-build perspective, I think
we're mostly edging very slowly and irresolutely toward 3d CAD, albeit at a
breakneck pace.
Message 7 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

for some unexplained reason, you always remind me of m & ms.

Jack
Message 8 of 20
old-cadaver
in reply to: Anonymous

your little corner may be moving slowly yoward 3D, but the rest of the market is already there.
Message 9 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

You really have to wonder why you keep selling this. Our 'little' world
neither wants or needs to do it all in 3D. Usually a few good models are
all that's needed. Right or wrong. isn't the issue. Earning a profit is
what's important. Asking our users to take everything to 3d would slow us
down tremendously. No client will help us pay for upgrading every computer
and server in our office for 3d. I don't think that changing our entire
staff would be useful either. Don't think we could stop pumping out the jobs
like we do to do so. On time, under budget. Time after time.



--
Princess Jamie



wrote in message news:4842153@discussion.autodesk.com...
your little corner may be moving slowly yoward 3D, but the rest of the
market is already there.
Message 10 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

It's not just about making a 3D model. It's about making a 3D building. A
representation that is full of information. It's not just a 3D door, its a
steel door and hollow metal frame manufactured by Acme Doors, and has a Von
Duprin closer and Schlage locket. This particular door is keyed to
"Custodial". The paint on the door is Dunn Edwards Red 123, and the frame
is DE Gray 456.

This 3D model is passed from the Architect to the contractor, who feeds it
with more information, such as warranties, maintenance schedules, and
as-built information. But first, the GC uses the model for estimates and
material take offs, as well as construction scheduling and phasing.

Upon completion of construction, the model with all of this information, is
passed along to the owner, who now knows everything about the building at
the click of a button, from the model number of the door closer, to when the
first scheduled maintenance is on the HVAC unit on the roof. As time
passes, they feed the model with more information, such as what color they
repainted door 200B, or the partition added to room 102.

A few good models may be 'good enough' to get it built, but when I'm
offering the owner the tremendous value of a complete living database of
their building, well you'll understand why I get the next job.

Futhermore, you don't have to upgrade every server and computer in your
office to do this. You'll do twice the work in half the time, and use less
staff. Don't lay people off, go after more work! As you said, its about
profit. Changing staff isn't necesary either, just a small sacrifice for
training.

The benefits far outweigh the negatives. You'll still be on time, under
budget, but making more because your clients will see the added value, and
will pay you for it. And you will be working for twice as many clients.

This is the future. Continue status quo, or embrace technology and run with
it. We are on the edge of a Revolution in the business of Architecture.

"Jamie Duncan" wrote in message
news:4842199@discussion.autodesk.com...
You really have to wonder why you keep selling this. Our 'little' world
neither wants or needs to do it all in 3D. Usually a few good models are
all that's needed. Right or wrong. isn't the issue. Earning a profit is
what's important. Asking our users to take everything to 3d would slow us
down tremendously. No client will help us pay for upgrading every computer
and server in our office for 3d. I don't think that changing our entire
staff would be useful either. Don't think we could stop pumping out the jobs
like we do to do so. On time, under budget. Time after time.



--
Princess Jamie



wrote in message news:4842153@discussion.autodesk.com...
your little corner may be moving slowly yoward 3D, but the rest of the
market is already there.
Message 11 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

And where do I buy this software. Really would like to see it work. Even
more interested about the gc inputting data. YOU really seem to have an eye
for the future. ON top of things as it were. Don't you think this will take
a lot of time to input though? Really wonder how all these companies are
going to work together on this.
Usually these days the gc has a problem presenting as-builts in .dwg format,
we have to do that as and added service to the client, and that's simple 2d.
Going to be a long time before all this works as well as you've portrayed
it. Sure wonder if revit or adt is really up to the task.


--
Princess Jamie,

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
- Anais Nin

"Scott Davis" wrote in message
news:4842381@discussion.autodesk.com...
It's not just about making a 3D model. It's about making a 3D building. A
representation that is full of information. It's not just a 3D door, its a
steel door and hollow metal frame manufactured by Acme Doors, and has a Von
Duprin closer and Schlage locket. This particular door is keyed to
"Custodial". The paint on the door is Dunn Edwards Red 123, and the frame
is DE Gray 456.

This 3D model is passed from the Architect to the contractor, who feeds it
with more information, such as warranties, maintenance schedules, and
as-built information. But first, the GC uses the model for estimates and
material take offs, as well as construction scheduling and phasing.

Upon completion of construction, the model with all of this information, is
passed along to the owner, who now knows everything about the building at
the click of a button, from the model number of the door closer, to when the
first scheduled maintenance is on the HVAC unit on the roof. As time
passes, they feed the model with more information, such as what color they
repainted door 200B, or the partition added to room 102.

A few good models may be 'good enough' to get it built, but when I'm
offering the owner the tremendous value of a complete living database of
their building, well you'll understand why I get the next job.

Futhermore, you don't have to upgrade every server and computer in your
office to do this. You'll do twice the work in half the time, and use less
staff. Don't lay people off, go after more work! As you said, its about
profit. Changing staff isn't necesary either, just a small sacrifice for
training.

The benefits far outweigh the negatives. You'll still be on time, under
budget, but making more because your clients will see the added value, and
will pay you for it. And you will be working for twice as many clients.

This is the future. Continue status quo, or embrace technology and run with
it. We are on the edge of a Revolution in the business of Architecture.

"Jamie Duncan" wrote in message
news:4842199@discussion.autodesk.com...
You really have to wonder why you keep selling this. Our 'little' world
neither wants or needs to do it all in 3D. Usually a few good models are
all that's needed. Right or wrong. isn't the issue. Earning a profit is
what's important. Asking our users to take everything to 3d would slow us
down tremendously. No client will help us pay for upgrading every computer
and server in our office for 3d. I don't think that changing our entire
staff would be useful either. Don't think we could stop pumping out the jobs
like we do to do so. On time, under budget. Time after time.



--
Princess Jamie



wrote in message news:4842153@discussion.autodesk.com...
your little corner may be moving slowly yoward 3D, but the rest of the
market is already there.
Message 12 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"mmm" wrote
> Sure wonder if revit or adt is really up to the task.

ADT/ABS is mostly up to it. I don't know from Revit, but I suspect it is,
too. Where it falls flat for my firm, though, is at the that point where the
"3D model is passed from the Architect to the contractor, who feeds it with
more information." It's rare for me to find a contractor who can handle a
recent DWG file format, much less AEC objects. Then there's the traditional
liability concerns that always surface when you start talking about sharing
raw design data. Architects are sued every day because some contractor's
estimate came up short. What do we say when the contractor tells the court,
"well, my estimate came right smack from the architect's 3d model?" We're
currently leveraging as much of the software's capabilities as is practical
for us, but we can't get paid for all that added-value stuff that goes into
a BIM until there's somebody willing to buy it and to whom we're willing to
sell it.
Message 13 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

It just means that we must not only re-think the way we design and produce
CD's, we need to re-think contracts and liability. I would think that a
hand-off of a model to a GC would come with a contract that has language
that states "architect not responsible for estimates prepared by GC." or
something like that....obviously I'm not a lawyer and don't know the 'lgeal
speak'.

Our Arch Firm owns a Construction Services firm. They build the projects we
design. We get them on board with Revit, and this idea of the "living
model/database" and pass infomation on to them. They understand the
importance of keeping this data updated and alive. They can make more
money, and charge slightly more, because they are passing along added value
to the Owner. Once a few of these Construction companies get on board, many
more will.

Architecture is the one industry that is soooo far behind ther other
'manufacturing' industries (which we are in, just manufacturing buildings!)
Take Boeing for example...they design an entire airplane in the cpmputer
before one ounce of metal is cut. Their model contains EVERYTHING! It's an
exact electronic representation of the plane. Material takes off are
perfect, because its not 'fudged' in any way. Why can't this same concept
be brought into the world of Architecture? It's coming.... 🙂

Go see Phil Berstein's Vision Tour if you have the chance, or call you
reseller and request the "Vison to Reality" DVD. Phil is a great speaker on
this subject, and there is a recorded video of this speeech on the DVD.

Scott

"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
news:4842843@discussion.autodesk.com...
"mmm" wrote
> Sure wonder if revit or adt is really up to the task.

ADT/ABS is mostly up to it. I don't know from Revit, but I suspect it is,
too. Where it falls flat for my firm, though, is at the that point where the
"3D model is passed from the Architect to the contractor, who feeds it with
more information." It's rare for me to find a contractor who can handle a
recent DWG file format, much less AEC objects. Then there's the traditional
liability concerns that always surface when you start talking about sharing
raw design data. Architects are sued every day because some contractor's
estimate came up short. What do we say when the contractor tells the court,
"well, my estimate came right smack from the architect's 3d model?" We're
currently leveraging as much of the software's capabilities as is practical
for us, but we can't get paid for all that added-value stuff that goes into
a BIM until there's somebody willing to buy it and to whom we're willing to
sell it.
Message 14 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

"Scott Davis" wrote
> It just means that we must not only re-think the way we design
> and produce CD's, we need to re-think contracts and liability.

I agree. The problem isn't with the building model, it's the business model.
Message 15 of 20
old-cadaver
in reply to: Anonymous

<>

Not selling, just pointing out the direction of the industry.


<>

Heard a similar claim 20 years ago, "Our 'little' world
neither wants or needs CAD." and they gave the very same reasons "Don't think we could stop pumping out the jobs
like we do to [learn CAD]. On time, under budget. Time after time." and " Earning a profit is what's important."

Hey, I hope everyone thinks just like you, and stagnates in the 2D mindset. It'll just leave more work for us.
Message 16 of 20
old-cadaver
in reply to: Anonymous

<>

We've been using plain ol' vanilla AutoCAD to do this kind of work for years.


<>

Yep, takes a lot more front-end time, saves a ton of back-end time.


<>

Simple, it's required by contract.


<>

maybe for you, but we've been quite profitable doing this for the last decade, the last 5 using 3D has improved our productivity even more..
Message 17 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

It's all a moot point! It doesn't matter if it's a 3d or 2d computer mode -
the final output is a set of construction documents and no building permit
will be issued until the bureaucrats at plan review get through changing
your construction documents to include their interpretation of the buildng
code.s.
Message 18 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

do you read what I post? really read it? I used 3d to solve a curtainwall
over 20 years ago


there are some major issues I see with the 3d full building model today,
which have yet to be resolved. I see advantages to it, and some
disadvantages. I merely question the timing of our firm's involvement, and
whether it's time to consider leaving acad and our heavily customized set-up
which caters specifically to our needs and embark in the revit world. I
have to consider many points, and nothing you have said has so far told me
it's time to move. We produce contract documents of a very high quality,
and do so faster than any firm we've yet come up against or worked in joint
venture with. So I have to look at the roi and the fact that we do not have
the in-house resources to develop a 3d solution like what your firm has
heavily invested in, and consider that our major clients are all using 2d
based facility management, that the largest engineering consulting firms in
our region are all 2d acad based, that the current industry standard for
legal documents is paper based, as are the city plan examiners. I have to
balance the down-time and learning curves needed to implement this. If our
efficiency was low, or we weren't keeping up with our clients demands, i
would be directing all of my attention at improving that. Your firm
obviously needed to reorganise and improve - and this is the path you took.
Don't belittle other firms simply because they are not doing things exactly
as you would have everyone do.



--
Princess Jamie,

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
- Anais Nin



--
Princess Jamie,

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
- Anais Nin

wrote in message news:4844400@discussion.autodesk.com...
<>

Not selling, just pointing out the direction of the industry.


<>

Heard a similar claim 20 years ago, "Our 'little' world
neither wants or needs CAD." and they gave the very same reasons "Don't
think we could stop pumping out the jobs
like we do to [learn CAD]. On time, under budget. Time after time." and "
Earning a profit is what's important."

Hey, I hope everyone thinks just like you, and stagnates in the 2D mindset.
It'll just leave more work for us.
Message 19 of 20
old-cadaver
in reply to: Anonymous

<>

Yes, then, paradoxically, you went on to say you "neither want nor need 3D"


<>

Which are... what?


< whether it's time to consider leaving acad and our heavily customized set-up which caters specifically to our needs and embark in the revit world. I have to consider many points, and nothing you have said has so far told me it's time to move. >>

There's no need to "LEAVE ACAD" or "MOVE". We've been happily doing 3D models in plain vanilla AutoCAD for nearly a decade.


< and do so faster than any firm we've yet come up against or worked in joint venture with. >>

As do we, and you've yet to compete with us in our industry, so that point is moot.


<
the in-house resources to develop a 3d solution like what your firm has heavily invested in, >>

You already own and operate AutoCAD right? Your investment has been made already, all that needs to be done now is modify the mindset.


<
based facility management, that the largest engineering consulting firms in our region are all 2d acad based>>

Should have little or nothing to do with your choices about 3D. We went 3D long before out clients did, and when they noticed, followed suit. But then we are a "leader" in our industry.


<>

Has nearly nothing to do with your choice to go 3D. We produce paper drawings just as we did decades ago, we just do it considerably faster in 3D.


<>

in the coming few years, your company WILL be replaced by faster more efficient companies. It'll either be your company or somebody else's.

Right now, drafting is being done in India for 1/5 the price it is done in the US. Sure the quality may be a little lower than we've come to demand, but they can afford to do it over until they get it right. In 10 years, they will have 10 years experience in YOUR industry and be able to provide the same quality work at half the cost. If you are ACTIVELY seeking ways to improve your productivity every day, you're handing them your job on a platter.
Message 20 of 20
Anonymous
in reply to: Anonymous

I see that you need more excuse to talk and the point is not that inportant.
Thank you anyway.




"gaghapar" wrote in message
news:4840760@discussion.autodesk.com...
Last few years we, AutoCAD users, have experienced number of "brand-new"
things from, Autodesk.

Around the August Autodesk usually announced that certain versions of
AutoCAD products will be discontinued from coming-year-January-15th then
army of Autodesk product dealers attack to all architectural, engineering
and drafting companies to sell their new products. It is, as usual,
faster-better-and-extraordinary. This circle usually goes about 2 years,
then it repeats (since 1998-99). Before companies do their payments to
Autodesk they realize that new version is just came up to the market (nice
disappointments).

Autodesk usually emphasizes that from 15th of January there will be no
technical support. Does anyone get any technical help directly from
Autodesk? I haven't heard of; I have tried few times and still waiting for
the answer.

So, why we buy the new versions? As usual, stuff training and full
transition to the new version takes about 1 year, then some employees leave
some new ones come and this takes forever to get the job done; until the new
version.

My point is "THERE IS NO NEED TO BUY A NEW VERSION OF AUTOCAD"; Just one for
translation. The entire projects we do in-house and only few "dummy"
consultants walk with "technology", whose drawings we need to convert to out
version. The software overhead expenses is to match these days to spend
every year 70K-150K, for midsize companies.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Administrator Productivity


Autodesk Design & Make Report