When to say When

[Anonymous]

The problem that I'm having in the office right now, is trying to
make the decision of where to draw the line. . . . . literally. All of
this new ADT3 stuff is really coo, and I'm sure that with absolute
knowledge of the program can possible be used. But with any normal firm, no
everyone in the office can draw in 3d let alone understand how to do it.
And then even the people that do understand it, will run into problems.
When is it worth going through the effort to create a roof in 3D. I know
that doing things like this will not only help with the consistency of the
drawings by keeping them linked together, but the time, and frustrations
can be over whelming, or so it seems. I'm just interested as far as what
you guys are doing. What benefits are you using from ADT, and which ones
are you leaving alone. . . . . schedules, elevations, sections, detailer,
and so on.

Thanks
Jasen

[Anonymous]

Jasen, Why get so hung up on the 3D-ness of it all? Just start in plan view
to get used to the change ADT brings. It can be paralyzing for those who
haven't ever done any 3D work in Acad, to constantly be thinking " I have to
3D model everything". But in the real world, designing a building, a whole
range of decisions need to be made; from window sizes, to head heights, to
who knows what.... So thinking in 3D is second nature really.
If you just start out and use the AECImperial template to start a DWG,
and only use the Work Floor / Floor Plot layouts to do plans first until
you get more adventuresome. I still think you still see a vast speed
improvement over S&S Cad.
"Sticks and Stones" Cad ( plain vanilla Acad) that emulates board hand
drafting is a dead-end for any possible increases in efficiencies after
initial customization. The only speed gains are through slugging lines
faster and faster. Not exactly the good utilization of your computer
hardware, and you are still playing catch up with a good draftsman. You
still have Acad2000 in ADT so you feel free to add any "2d" linework and
symbols and such you want to get the job done. Just mind your layer
standards (former cad manager).
I realize there are "issues" involved in any change to a system that has
been in place and is working, why rock the boat, why take the risk? And if
your company is medium to large, the sheer size of potential problems - is
daunting. No one but you the Cad mgr. &/or the Principals, can make those
decisions, as they are similar to any life changes one has to make. The
change IS big, the learning curve Huge, classes are almost mandatory for all
but the most dedicated self learners. ADT sometimes makes complex tasks easy
and easy tasks hard; i.e.. Wall cleanups. All in all it can be a tough step
to take, to change so radically. So break it down in to more digestible
smaller chunks.
As for creating roofs, for the most part the system does a good job of
building them by itself. True the more complex ones need to be edited and
modified and worked on. But I use to do that by hand also, just now with a
different set of tools. The pay off is in the extraction of 2d Elevations,
Sections, and Model Rendering in Viz. The coordination of linked Elevations
with the plan is a major addition no office should be without. There are so
many features that put the bar up quite high, but I think that is a good
thing. The learning never stops, nor do the possibilities.
In summary, I think because this software opens so many doors for the
architect using Acad, and its' potential is what is so intriguing. I've
already gained so much more time for better design in using ADT from its
first release. ADT3 in less than 2 yrs old is a very robust program, that
continues to challenge me to learn and really think about the designs as
they are being completed.
Kevin Anderson

Jasen Arias wrote in message
news:F4FFC51A2E1C312DFA523F1EC3C7A81D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> The problem that I'm having in the office right now, is trying to
> make the decision of where to draw the line. . . . . literally. All of

[Anonymous]

Jasen,

I saw your post back on Tuesday but was busy so I hope you are still
following this. Anyway I here is how I see it.

I prefer a cautious approach to implementing ADT at least as far as CD's
are concerned. Start with basic walls, doors, windows, desktop content
and go from there. I do not know for sure where you are at currently
but get up to speed fully on the display system. Do not worry about 3d
at all.

If you have not done so already get your standards up to date with ADT
prior to letting everyone lose on it or disaster is soon to follow.
Take the opportunity to reevaluate some of your standards, and get your
styles and content updated to your standards.

Develop a training and implementation schedule where you outline what
you want to work on next. Ceilings, stairs & railings, roofs, schedules
etc can all be phased in. I would suggest you stay away from elevations
and sections until you have the rest fully understood. Again we are
talking CD's, for SD go ahead and give things a try.

I would suggest you also skip the whole pre-design part of the program
when you are first implementing also. Great features but too much to
learn all at once. Again phase those things in, this is not a race. It
is much better to fully understand the most important features to you
first then move on, rather than being overwhelmed with the full program
at once.

Also, do not let your trainer pressure you into implementing more than
you want. They often do not use the program in real life situations and
it is easy for them to say you should use the whole thing. Rather than
touch on the cool features take the time to really get everyone
conformable with the basics then move on.

Evan Larson
GLT Architects
www.gltarchitects.com

Jasen Arias wrote:
>
> The problem that I'm having in the office right now, is trying to
> make the decision of where to draw the line. . . . . literally. All of
> this new ADT3 stuff is really coo, and I'm sure that with absolute
> knowledge of the program can possible be used. But with any normal firm, no
> everyone in the office can draw in 3d let alone understand how to do it.
> And then even the people that do understand it, will run into problems.
> When is it worth going through the effort to create a roof in 3D. I know
> that doing things like this will not only help with the consistency of the
> drawings by keeping them linked together, but the time, and frustrations
> can be over whelming, or so it seems. I'm just interested as far as what
> you guys are doing. What benefits are you using from ADT, and which ones
> are you leaving alone. . . . . schedules, elevations, sections, detailer,
> and so on.
>
> Thanks
> Jasen

[Anonymous]

I agree with Kevin and Evan, don't let the fact that ADT is marketed as 3D
solution get you bogged down. I'll go a step further though. My opinion is
that despite the 3D hype, ADT can be used, and is in fact at it's best in
traditional 2D modes (repeat...just my opinion). Many people (including
myself) can produce superior 3D product without the ADT features. It takes
a lot of "trigger-work" to produce interesting 3D designs with or without
ADT. The "triggers" are just different.

But as a plan tool, once you understand tricky things like wall cleanups,
endcaps and modifiers, ADT is pretty slick. Schedules, elevations, and
sections still have a long long long way to go, in my opinion. If you
concentrate on the minutia of getting things to look right in plan, with an
understanding of styles, components and entity display, you'll see some
return on your investment.

A couple of the coolest features in ADT I think, even though they don't get
much press, are layout curves and node anchors. Very useful, 3D or
otherwise.

The Detailer, as uncool and technologically "outdated" as it may be, is
worth the price of the product all by itself. That is, if your firm
actually produces construction documents. It's been a great product since
the days of Vertex. I sure hope they don't mess it up. Part of the reason
why it's so good is precisely because it's so "non-cutting-edge". There are
absolutely no issues with sharing details with non-ADT or even non-AutoCAD
users. Pick and click simplicity. Gotta love it. It's what CAD is
supposed to be.

-Brian

"Jasen Arias" wrote in message
news:F4FFC51A2E1C312DFA523F1EC3C7A81D@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> The problem that I'm having in the office right now, is trying to
> make the decision of where to draw the line. . . . . literally. All of
> this new ADT3 stuff is really coo, and I'm sure that with absolute
> knowledge of the program can possible be used. But with any normal firm,
no
> everyone in the office can draw in 3d let alone understand how to do it.
> And then even the people that do understand it, will run into problems.
> When is it worth going through the effort to create a roof in 3D. I know
> that doing things like this will not only help with the consistency of the
> drawings by keeping them linked together, but the time, and frustrations
> can be over whelming, or so it seems. I'm just interested as far as what
> you guys are doing. What benefits are you using from ADT, and which ones
> are you leaving alone. . . . . schedules, elevations, sections,
detailer,
> and so on.
>
> Thanks
> Jasen
>

[Anonymous]

Too bad they don't focus on adding content, prefering to add "gee-whiz"
features. They lost some Vertex funtionality and the product hasn't been
updated in years. I use it much more than all the ADT features. Let's not
forget this product must be at least 10 years old.
> The Detailer, as uncool and technologically "outdated" as it may be, is
> worth the price of the product all by itself. That is, if your firm
> actually produces construction documents. It's been a great product since
> the days of Vertex. I sure hope they don't mess it up. Part of the
reason
> why it's so good is precisely because it's so "non-cutting-edge". There
are
> absolutely no issues with sharing details with non-ADT or even non-AutoCAD
> users. Pick and click simplicity. Gotta love it. It's what CAD is
> supposed to be.
>
>

[sotosp]

PMJI but,


where is the Detailer you mention? A couple of our Architects recall something similar to what you describe from past versions, but we can't seem to locate anything like it in ADT3. Is is still there? If not, can it be migrated from earlier versions.

This discussion is a good one and I've passed everyone's comments on to some of our Architects.

Sotos Patistas
DJG, Inc.
Williamsburg, VA

[Anonymous]

Details are installed separate from the main ADT package. Its setup.exe
file is located on the CD in a folder called Details. Once installed, it
must run from a separate shortcut that it puts on the
Start/Programs/Autodesk Architectural Desktop 3 menu. It uses a different
Profile that limits it to opening one drawing at a time. Something to do
with old legacy code that won't work properly in a multi-document
environment.

Hope that helps.

-Brian

"sotosp" wrote in message
news:f02bc7f.4@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> PMJI but,
>
> where is the Detailer you mention? A couple of our Architects recall
something similar to what you describe from past versions, but we can't seem
to locate anything like it in ADT3. Is is still there? If not, can it be
migrated from earlier versions.
>
> This discussion is a good one and I've passed everyone's comments on to
some of our Architects.
>
> Sotos Patistas
> DJG, Inc.
> Williamsburg, VA
>
>

[sotosp]

That was it! Thanks much.

Sotos