Question for David Koch

[Anonymous]

David:

I notice from your posts that while you have been using ADT / ACA 2004 -
2009 at home, the company you work for is still on ADT 2004 and has not kept
moving forward. Why are they not keeping up? ADT 2004 is no longer even
being supported. Do they not realize how far behind they are? What reasons
have they given for not staying current? Is it budgeting? Training costs?
Too much In-HouseCustomization? Do they not realize the time-saving
enhancements that have been released since 2004? Or are they only using a
limited set of tools and AutoCADing the rest? Just why have they not
implemented any of the Releases since 2004? Your comments would be
appreciated as I need some advice to keep us upgrading with each and every
release.

Thanks in advance.

DK

[Anonymous]

Being a simple person on the floor, trying to understand the software I use while producing contract document drawings, I am not privy to all of the discussions, decisions and drivers that interact and result in our CAD policy. We are on subscription, so any of the releases since 2004 could have been deployed. There was at least one project that required the use of a later version, and that was given to members of that team. The firm for which I work is a relatively large, multi-disciplinary team, and there has historically been a good deal of resistance to changes in procedures, particularly from the engineering disciplines.

On projects with which I am familiar (a very small percentage of those we do), we are not creating full building models. It took some time, but the architects are using walls, doors and spaces. Room names and numbers are schedule tags, and doors are also tagged and scheduled using the program's schedule feature. If the person doing the drafting in the schematic phase understands ceiling grids, they might get used; otherwise it is just linework. By the time I get on a project, there is usually not enough time/budget to redraw things that are already "done". I am not aware of anyone doing generated elevations or sections. I have done an equipment schedule using ADT scheduling, when the project schedule permits. The structural engineers do create structural grids, but much of the rest of what they do is generated in analysis programs, then brought into CAD via custom objects, rather than being modeled in ADT objects. Most of the mechanical engineering staff starts looking for sharp objects with which to defend their current workflow, anytime 3D is mentioned. Some will concede that for the "right" project, a 3D model of major items could be useful, provided we are paid for the extra time and effort needed to create it. We do not use Project Navigator, as current policy prohibits opening files directly from network locations.

Back when 2006 was current, there was an announcement that we would be migrating to it, but it never happened. There was another announcement last fall, stating that new projects would be done in 2008 - with 2008 being deployed to people as needed, but I am not aware of that having been enforced so far, except for one project. In fairness, evaluating a new release, identifying new features that may impact our workflow, getting all of our custom content migrated to the new version (and verifying it works) or creating new content/workflow when appropriate and setting up a new deployment is not something that can be done overnight. Other tasks that "must be done now" interrupt the process, and, before you know it, a service pack or the next release is out, requiring another reevaluation.

Could we be more proactive at staying current? Sure, and there are many times I wish we were. But someone would need to champion that process, and be able to sell its value to the rest of the firm. No one here would argue against upgrading to a more efficient means of getting the job done, but there will be plenty who would question just how much more efficient the new release is and how long it will take for the staff to get up to speed (how long will it take for the new efficiency to make up for the initial inefficiency caused by change). And nearly everyone would like the first few projects in the new system to be someone else's projects. Without a highly placed champion, overcoming the inherent inertia in a larger firm is quite difficult.

--

David Koch
Autodesk Discussion Group Facilitator
Using ADT 2004 at work; access to 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008 at home

[Anonymous]

David:

Thanks very much for your reply. I keep hearing this from all sides; few
firms really use ACA "all the way" which in my opinion is a shame. This
probably explains the path the "powers that be" have taken in developing the
software.

Personally I believe that 3d is the absolute best approach to architectural
drafting and design. What is in a way so funny about all of this is really
how far behind and how far off all the predictions of 20+ years ago have
proven to be. For example, we are nearing the year 2010. In 1980 if you
asked the "man on the street" what life would be like in 2010 he would
probably describe something out of "Back to the Future" Part 2. Yet here we
are. Same fossil fuel, worse climate, etc.... The internet and PC's have
such potential (as does ACA). Why are we still using 2d linework to create
a wall section? Shouldn't the wall section be able to do that on its own?
I see a wall section generated at 1/4" scale automatically showing a level
of detail appropriate for the scale and the exact same section showing a
much greater level of detail for 1"=1'-0". The point is the wall should
have it all just like the real one it represents--it shouldn't have to be
augmented with 2d linework.

But the real problem is that even if the software were built to do just that
90% of the end users would have their fingers up their "nose" trying to find
the power button on their PC or at least pass out with a seizure from "brain
overload."

I fear it will be another generation until things start to change for the
better. The only way you'll ever get the T-Square away from the old *arts
is when you 'pry it out of their stone cold hands!' 😉

DK









wrote in message news:5851383@discussion.autodesk.com...
Being a simple person on the floor, trying to understand the software I use
while producing contract document drawings, I am not privy to all of the
discussions, decisions and drivers that interact and result in our CAD
policy. We are on subscription, so any of the releases since 2004 could
have been deployed. There was at least one project that required the use of
a later version, and that was given to members of that team. The firm for
which I work is a relatively large, multi-disciplinary team, and there has
historically been a good deal of resistance to changes in procedures,
particularly from the engineering disciplines.

On projects with which I am familiar (a very small percentage of those we
do), we are not creating full building models. It took some time, but the
architects are using walls, doors and spaces. Room names and numbers are
schedule tags, and doors are also tagged and scheduled using the program's
schedule feature. If the person doing the drafting in the schematic phase
understands ceiling grids, they might get used; otherwise it is just
linework. By the time I get on a project, there is usually not enough
time/budget to redraw things that are already "done". I am not aware of
anyone doing generated elevations or sections. I have done an equipment
schedule using ADT scheduling, when the project schedule permits. The
structural engineers do create structural grids, but much of the rest of
what they do is generated in analysis programs, then brought into CAD via
custom objects, rather than being modeled in ADT objects. Most of the
mechanical engineering staff starts looking for sharp objects with which to
defend their current workflow, anytime 3D is mentioned. Some will concede
that for the "right" project, a 3D model of major items could be useful,
provided we are paid for the extra time and effort needed to create it. We
do not use Project Navigator, as current policy prohibits opening files
directly from network locations.

Back when 2006 was current, there was an announcement that we would be
migrating to it, but it never happened. There was another announcement last
fall, stating that new projects would be done in 2008 - with 2008 being
deployed to people as needed, but I am not aware of that having been
enforced so far, except for one project. In fairness, evaluating a new
release, identifying new features that may impact our workflow, getting all
of our custom content migrated to the new version (and verifying it works)
or creating new content/workflow when appropriate and setting up a new
deployment is not something that can be done overnight. Other tasks that
"must be done now" interrupt the process, and, before you know it, a service
pack or the next release is out, requiring another reevaluation.

Could we be more proactive at staying current? Sure, and there are many
times I wish we were. But someone would need to champion that process, and
be able to sell its value to the rest of the firm. No one here would argue
against upgrading to a more efficient means of getting the job done, but
there will be plenty who would question just how much more efficient the new
release is and how long it will take for the staff to get up to speed (how
long will it take for the new efficiency to make up for the initial
inefficiency caused by change). And nearly everyone would like the first
few projects in the new system to be someone else's projects. Without a
highly placed champion, overcoming the inherent inertia in a larger firm is
quite difficult.

--

David Koch
Autodesk Discussion Group Facilitator
Using ADT 2004 at work; access to 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008 at home

[acaduser23]

" few firms..." i work at a firm that is on LT. I use acad and arch in another office and find that it is very useful and much prefer this to LT. At the LT office we have folks who never learned anything but 2d drafting and lines. They tried to go use adt 2004 but this was met with much resistance.

i have a question about Autocad Architecture 2008 - why and to what benefit is breaking a building apart into constructs a good thing? i like pretty much all of what I see but have not yet found a project where breaking up the bldg such as the ext walls beyond layers is useful. perhaps the answer is that the projects just aren't large enough.

I am searching for reasons to stick it out and try to use ACA "FULLY"

[Anonymous]

Stick it out. The more you use it , the benefits will be self evident. My
experience is that when used proficiently adt is a 30 to 50 % gain in
productivity. I can complete a one story residence with elevations,
schedules, floor plan etc. in roughly half the time of vanilla acad. As to
the project navigator, my onion is that the productivity comes on multi
story , large projects. On small one or two story project I find little
reason to use it.

wrote in message news:5851549@discussion.autodesk.com...
" few firms..." i work at a firm that is on LT. I use acad and arch in
another office and find that it is very useful and much prefer this to LT.
At the LT office we have folks who never learned anything but 2d drafting
and lines. They tried to go use adt 2004 but this was met with much
resistance.

i have a question about Autocad Architecture 2008 - why and to what
benefit is breaking a building apart into constructs a good thing? i like
pretty much all of what I see but have not yet found a project where
breaking up the bldg such as the ext walls beyond layers is useful.
perhaps the answer is that the projects just aren't large enough.

I am searching for reasons to stick it out and try to use ACA "FULLY"

[Anonymous]

>>>The only way you'll ever get the T-Square away from the old *arts is when
>>>you 'pry it out of their stone cold hands!' 😉

I take exception to that statement. 🙂
In my experience it has been that younger people are being more resistant to
change.
A lot of them already "know it all".
I hear them furiously tapping away at the keyboard day after day and in the
end
they produce less than what this old geezer of nearly 60 does in half the
time.
Thing is....I don't know it all.........and everday I'm learning and I come
a little closer
to "knowing it all". (and that's never going to happen)

Leo

[Anonymous]

The benefit in using Constructs even in a small project are immeasurable.
Here's how and why:

1. Small One Story Building: Have a Construct for the Exterior "Shell"
with the roof in this file as well.

2. Have a separate Construct for all the Interior "guts" of the building.

3. Xref Overlay these two together to "see" the relationships between
outside and in when drawing in the constructs. Use Project
Navigator to do this and just drag-and-drop files one into another.

4. The two constructs will "merge" together in Views to form the
different types of Plans you need (Floor Plan, Reflected Ceiling, Roof Plan,
etc....)

What are the benefits in this method?

1. You use just the Exterior "Shell" to generate your Exterior
Elevations. Without the Interior "guts" elevations are created quicker and
do not have to "hide" everything behind the exterior walls.

2. With experience and a little Display Rep. tweaking you can create a
Roof Plan "View" where the exterior walls are displayed as a single dashed
line and the roof is displayed. Again with the interior "guts" in a
separate file these objects do not get in the way of this plan type so you
don't have to mess with freezing layers etc....

Why use ACA "all the way?" We all paid almost $4k for the program so is it
not a waste of $$$ not squeeze every last drop from it?

But it takes longer to create a building using the ACA method! Wrong--Dead
Wrong! Using ACA Objects the way they were intended actually speeds drawing
creation. How? Because you put an object in one time and that object
generates both Plan and Section and Elevation Views. Change the Object and
all other views when updated change too.

To prove this for yourself try one simple test: Download the Toilet
partitions I posted in the thread "Need Interior Elevation Help--Please."
This was a facetious post with the intent of getting people to "think." The
files are in my last post in the thread.

Put them in a drawing and generate an interior elevation. Was that faster
then drawing them in Plan and then creating the elevations using linework.
Change them and update the elevation. Faster or Slower?

When people say it takes longer they speak out of ignorance. The key to ACA
is something we all need to keep doing all our life--take in knowledge! I
know architects that will pay to go to a boxed lunch AIA meeting so as to
get their CEU's and see a Power Point presentation that really is just a
sales pitch by a manufacturer but that same architect will not invest for
free in the tools of his trade.

Interestingly there is a side effect to all of this that will make everyone
here a lot happier. It is for this very reason that AutoCAD and ACA will
never be discontinued by Autodesk. It is because with the average user
knowing 20 or less commands they will never be ready for anything else.

The other power of ACA is the Library of styles--build it up, customize it
and use it.

Invest in yourself and learn.

DK



wrote in message news:5851549@discussion.autodesk.com...
" few firms..." i work at a firm that is on LT. I use acad and arch in
another office and find that it is very useful and much prefer this to LT.
At the LT office we have folks who never learned anything but 2d drafting
and lines. They tried to go use adt 2004 but this was met with much
resistance.

i have a question about Autocad Architecture 2008 - why and to what
benefit is breaking a building apart into constructs a good thing? i like
pretty much all of what I see but have not yet found a project where
breaking up the bldg such as the ext walls beyond layers is useful.
perhaps the answer is that the projects just aren't large enough.

I am searching for reasons to stick it out and try to use ACA "FULLY"

[Anonymous]

Leo:

Remember there is a big difference in being old and being an old *art. Just
like being young is different from being a young fool. Its the later of
both I had reference to. 😉

DK


"Leo the Builder" wrote in message
news:5852012@discussion.autodesk.com...
>>>The only way you'll ever get the T-Square away from the old *arts is when
>>>you 'pry it out of their stone cold hands!' 😉

I take exception to that statement. 🙂
In my experience it has been that younger people are being more resistant to
change.
A lot of them already "know it all".
I hear them furiously tapping away at the keyboard day after day and in the
end
they produce less than what this old geezer of nearly 60 does in half the
time.
Thing is....I don't know it all.........and everday I'm learning and I come
a little closer
to "knowing it all". (and that's never going to happen)

Leo

[Anonymous]

I know what you meant, just couln't resist responding....

Leo


"D.K." wrote in message
news:5852064@discussion.autodesk.com...
Leo:

Remember there is a big difference in being old and being an old *art. Just
like being young is different from being a young fool. Its the later of
both I had reference to. 😉

DK


"Leo the Builder" wrote in message
news:5852012@discussion.autodesk.com...
>>>The only way you'll ever get the T-Square away from the old *arts is when
>>>you 'pry it out of their stone cold hands!' 😉

I take exception to that statement. 🙂
In my experience it has been that younger people are being more resistant to
change.
A lot of them already "know it all".
I hear them furiously tapping away at the keyboard day after day and in the
end
they produce less than what this old geezer of nearly 60 does in half the
time.
Thing is....I don't know it all.........and everday I'm learning and I come
a little closer
to "knowing it all". (and that's never going to happen)

Leo

[Anonymous]

all valid points and comments. My point was on a small project layout tabs
and snapshots accomplish the same thing and in a template file all the set
up is already done, elevations take a second to generate and automatically
hide all. The biggest hindering point is the trades simply don't use adt or
aca or project management or even know what it is. If all is done in house,
what a blessing. I deal with an engineer still using r-12 most everyone else
is still at 2000

"D.K." wrote in message
news:5852087@discussion.autodesk.com...
The benefit in using Constructs even in a small project are immeasurable.
Here's how and why:

1. Small One Story Building: Have a Construct for the Exterior "Shell"
with the roof in this file as well.

2. Have a separate Construct for all the Interior "guts" of the building.

3. Xref Overlay these two together to "see" the relationships between
outside and in when drawing in the constructs. Use Project
Navigator to do this and just drag-and-drop files one into another.

4. The two constructs will "merge" together in Views to form the
different types of Plans you need (Floor Plan, Reflected Ceiling, Roof Plan,
etc....)

What are the benefits in this method?

1. You use just the Exterior "Shell" to generate your Exterior
Elevations. Without the Interior "guts" elevations are created quicker and
do not have to "hide" everything behind the exterior walls.

2. With experience and a little Display Rep. tweaking you can create a
Roof Plan "View" where the exterior walls are displayed as a single dashed
line and the roof is displayed. Again with the interior "guts" in a
separate file these objects do not get in the way of this plan type so you
don't have to mess with freezing layers etc....

Why use ACA "all the way?" We all paid almost $4k for the program so is it
not a waste of $$$ not squeeze every last drop from it?

But it takes longer to create a building using the ACA method! Wrong--Dead
Wrong! Using ACA Objects the way they were intended actually speeds drawing
creation. How? Because you put an object in one time and that object
generates both Plan and Section and Elevation Views. Change the Object and
all other views when updated change too.

To prove this for yourself try one simple test: Download the Toilet
partitions I posted in the thread "Need Interior Elevation Help--Please."
This was a facetious post with the intent of getting people to "think." The
files are in my last post in the thread.

Put them in a drawing and generate an interior elevation. Was that faster
then drawing them in Plan and then creating the elevations using linework.
Change them and update the elevation. Faster or Slower?

When people say it takes longer they speak out of ignorance. The key to ACA
is something we all need to keep doing all our life--take in knowledge! I
know architects that will pay to go to a boxed lunch AIA meeting so as to
get their CEU's and see a Power Point presentation that really is just a
sales pitch by a manufacturer but that same architect will not invest for
free in the tools of his trade.

Interestingly there is a side effect to all of this that will make everyone
here a lot happier. It is for this very reason that AutoCAD and ACA will
never be discontinued by Autodesk. It is because with the average user
knowing 20 or less commands they will never be ready for anything else.

The other power of ACA is the Library of styles--build it up, customize it
and use it.

Invest in yourself and learn.

DK



wrote in message news:5851549@discussion.autodesk.com...
" few firms..." i work at a firm that is on LT. I use acad and arch in
another office and find that it is very useful and much prefer this to LT.
At the LT office we have folks who never learned anything but 2d drafting
and lines. They tried to go use adt 2004 but this was met with much
resistance.

i have a question about Autocad Architecture 2008 - why and to what
benefit is breaking a building apart into constructs a good thing? i like
pretty much all of what I see but have not yet found a project where
breaking up the bldg such as the ext walls beyond layers is useful.
perhaps the answer is that the projects just aren't large enough.

I am searching for reasons to stick it out and try to use ACA "FULLY"

[mixtup]

David,
I was actually quite surprised to hear you also work elsewhere. Some of your replies would take me eight hours to type, 😉
Just thought i'd take a second(ok, 10 minutes) to say your doing a great job here. Your posts are always detailed, polite and a pleasure to read. As i'm in a different hemisphere, you'll have to give yourself a pat on the back. Well done.

[Anonymous]

I agree....David gives the most detailed responses and is a great help
to all who read his posts. Maybe he has stock answers ready and does a
copy/paste 🙂

Leo


wrote in message news:5854078@discussion.autodesk.com...
David,
I was actually quite surprised to hear you also work elsewhere. Some
of your replies would take me eight hours to type, 😉
Just thought i'd take a second(ok, 10 minutes) to say your doing a great job
here. Your posts are always detailed, polite and a pleasure to read. As i'm
in a different hemisphere, you'll have to give yourself a pat on the back.
Well done.

[mixtup]

Haha.. that would explain it.

[bt-arch]

One good reason to use ACA fully is that that is the way it is set up to be used.

One of the easiest ways to use this program is to just use it as it comes right out of the box. Just deduct or change the bits you don't like. But generally if you stick to it, you will see that the PN setup is pretty logical and has a lot of benefits for organizing projects. There is a huge benefit to setting each CAD project up in the same way, and ACA/PN really makes that totally automatic. And there a lot of hidden features in the whole PN scheme that just aren't apparent from a casual look at it.

I am suprised that David Koch's firm is not all that ADT sophisticated, because David's posts certainly are. I guess I just assumed that his firm was as sophisicated as he is on the whole thing.

The moral of that story would have to be that large firms have more work to do to adopt new systems, so they change more slowly. So small firms can/should adopt new things more easily.

We use about 90% of ADT and are modelling most of our projects and are using elevations, sections and schedules. Once you learn it, it is hugely better and absolutely reduces coordination errors. No project is too small to model, once you are good at it. But you have to take the time to learn it first.

[Anonymous]

I agree with that to be sure. David is helpful with some things that are
pretty in depth, like custom tag setups etc. and the detailed information
has helped me out many a time.

Evan

wrote in message news:5854078@discussion.autodesk.com...
David,
I was actually quite surprised to hear you also work elsewhere. Some
of your replies would take me eight hours to type, 😉
Just thought i'd take a second(ok, 10 minutes) to say your doing a great job
here. Your posts are always detailed, polite and a pleasure to read. As i'm
in a different hemisphere, you'll have to give yourself a pat on the back.
Well done.

[eviele]

Know it all. 😉

[Dermie1]

DK
I am an old *art, I hope there is a bit more art in my fa**'s though.
I have just (in the last two years) spent a bit of time working for two very small architectural firms. One has a draftsman using Autocad 2000i, he is the only drawer in a company with three Architects. Their drawings are not great, their design is not one of thier strong points either.
The next company uses some crappy software called Data Cad. The boss does not have a computer in his office. (At least the in the other company the boss recieved all the email & typed away on his computer doing buisness correspondence & editing my correspondence.)
But getting back to the second company, when I got there he wanted me to configure ACA to produce drawings to look like their drawing style, which really has a hand drawn look.
He got real annoyed when ACA did not have the exact font that Data Cad did.
This second guy realy wanted to have a draftsperson that could hand draft as well as he could & charge about AU$12 per hour. After I left he hired a youg girl straight out of a 1 year drafting course using her own laptop & un registered AutoCAD Lt. About AU$17 ph with no upfront costs.
Iknow this is not the same as the bigger companies, but the culture is still there with the luddites & cheapskates.
Cheers Dermot
These guys are making a living out of what they do & as they are sort of "islands" in the sea of technology they would need to see the "value" in their bottom line first, which of course would be hard.
There are other Architectural companies locally that have embraced Revit, which is flavour of themonth in Australia at the moment.

[acaduser23]

well thanks for that response David - I see there are some rather passionate folks out there - young and old.
I will stick it out and continue to use it. I already preach the gospel because I did use Adt before it was architectuire and found the walls and schedules awesome. I also loved the detailer component and database noting - that part was the most awesome I think because all the notes in the one office that embraced desktop were alike - smae notes, same drafting etc.

So at the risk of starting another string -
how are you that have previously replied to this string adjusting to REVIT - I know this is not that forum but David do you use REVIT and if so ( without Dean complaining about the venue) what do you think?

oh and by the way - i find young people straight out of school - wanting to 2d draft but 50 % on the willingness to learn another prgram. i think that I know it is just part of the profession - here to say -- why because I know it is so....

[Anonymous]

We have some Revit licenses, and I have been told that our Washington office is doing a project in Revit. I have not been trained on Revit nor used it in any significant way, so I can not comment on "adjusting" to it. I have seen it in demos and in several classes at AU 2006, and was impressed with its apparent capabilities.

--

David Koch
Autodesk Discussion Group Facilitator
Using ADT 2004 at work; access to 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008 at home

[Anonymous]

to 2d draft but 50 % on the willingness to learn another prgram. i think
that I know it is just part of the profession - here to say -- why because I
know it is so....>

At our local tech school I teach at one of their classes once a year and
have lunch with the instructors and they say that Revit is free for the
students but they have to pay for ADT. They choose to pay for ADT because
no one around here uses Revit. On the other hand the architecture school I
went to now only uses Revit. We have a great young summer intern lined up
from that school and she is useless to us because she only knows Revit.
Again she said Revit was free but hey have to pay for ADT so we can all do
that math on that one. Unfortunately it is not worth teaching her
AutoCAD/ADT so she will be only marginally useful and likely stuck doing
some pretty menial tasks.

Evan