I've Concluded my Review of ACA

[BillAllenSE]

I have completed my review of ACAD and ACA. The following are my conclusions.

Background:
I currently produce structural drawings using ACAD LT (2D) consisting of foundation plans, floor framing plans, roof framing plans and structural details generally using either the architect’s floor plans or PDFs of existing floor plans. I separate plans using layout tabs and paper space (with title block) and a view port to indicate the various plan views. Plan-wise, I draw everything on top of each other and I segregate the levels by turning on and off the various layers. For example, the first floor plan will have layer names such as A-FL01-*, the second floor plan A-FL02-* and the roof plan A-ROOF-*. Additionally, all of my work is remodeling existing buildings, so I also have them grouped by stage of construction such as A-FL01-****-EXIS, A-FL01-****-DEMO AND A-FL01-****-PROP.

Initial Goals:

1. To put it succinctly, avoid using REVIT. I tried that for 8 years and never really got productive enough (i.e., competitive) to make it worthwhile. To me, REVIT is not a precise drafting tool (lack of text editor and relying on “nudge” come to mind) particularly compared to ACAD.
2. To create 3D models for projects which have complicated framing conditions.
3. To generate a 3D model for structural analysis programs.
4. To generate framing and foundation plans using 3D walls instead of layering manipulation.

Conclusions:

In learning ACA, I’ve used LinkedIn/Learning and 2023 AutoCAD Architecture Fundamentals by Elise Moss as well as the ACA Forum. I have to say, Elise Moss was particularly helpful. All of these resources were very helpful. There is a LOT more to learn, not only about ACA but AutoCAD in general. I fall into that category of using ACAD for a long, long time (started with ACAD 10 in DOS!) and just kept plugging along when new versions came out. Yes, ACAD 12 was a big milestone. ACAD 13 (transitioning to Windows) w/Softdesk almost killed my business. Eventually, I was doing such basic ACAD using my previous project as a template and my detail library, I eventually realized that ACAD LT would be enough and it was for many years.

Eventually, I wanted to do more and that took me to Revit, but that wasn’t the answer for me so I returned to ACAD LT. I first tried ACAD because, at first glance, I felt ACA took too much control (layering, line weights, etc) out of my hands. I soon found that creating structural shapes, even most of those shapes were extruded rectangles for wood beams, it would be too tedious to create a 3D framing plan that way. I then studied ACA more and became comfortable with creating 3D framing plans using those tools. However, I found it was still too tedious to create plan views the way I want them, particularly using the Revisioning feature of ACA.

As of now, my approach to production jobs is to use ACAD, the full version. Just creating walls using MLINES and using the MultiLeader tool for annotation alone will justify the difference in cost between ACAD and ACAD LT. This is not counting catching up on such new features like Macro Record. As with EXCEL, I was too intimidated writing macros from scratch (don’t want to be a programmer learning VBA because I’ve been down that rabbit hole), so the record feature will take away my hesitation from learning/using LISP and the new variations available as well as other, yet unknown to me, new (“new” meaning added this century) ACAD tools and features. Therefore, I intend to produce plans as I have done before, in 2D. When the need/desire arises to create a 3D model, either for detailing or creating an analytical model, I will have the tools to do so.

Thanks to everyone for putting up with all of my annoying questions.

Regards

[handjonathan]

Hi @BillAllenSE 

Thank you for the feedback and insight. I'm glad the community was able to help and assist you in your learning journey.