CompuServe Messages

/* As Brendon said, I see plenty of architects who have no computer or a Mac at best and the AIA just issued a report that their members report no productivity gains with CAD. */ Who knows where this data comes from sometimes. I've worked for and consulted for several large architecturla firms that are getting very high productivity out of CADD. Maybe it's a case of "a poor carpenter quarrels with his tools". I've seen CADD used ineffectively in a lot of places. If a firm doesn't train it's people (or hire trained people) should they expect productivity gains? 🙂 /* I've done some Acad training for some good sized architectual firms, but they are only producing 2D, working drawings as a rule. */ This gets back to the same issue we were discussing with 3DS. Productive CADD does not mean 3D CADD. For some firms (most IMHO), 2D is all the firm needs to be more productive. But it gets deeper than this… how often does the firm re-use old drawings, what type of designs to they do? An architect who does sohpisticated never-to-be-repeated-again not-a-thing-the-house-that-lends-itself-to-repetition-or-symmetry may find CADD non-productive. A hotel designer, hospital designer, or apartment designer on the other hand can nix projects in as little a 10% the original time. I know… I did it for 6 years! (lots of Type 5 projects) 🙂 /* I have no contact with schools of architecture at all, but the civil department at University of New Hampshire will have nothing to do with CAD because "they aren't training drafters". Does this sound typical in */ Very. But then I never expect educational institutes to home in on practicality. I graduated with my first BS in Electrical Engineering and was absolutely worthless to the industry. The theory we had learned was almost 10 years out of date, not a practical skill had been taught, and the equipment we were using was anything but what the professional environment was using. I don't mean to come off all cynical and negative, but this is very typical. For the most part, it seems one doesn't go to a technical University to be taught, but to jump hoops and get a piece of paper. The real learning (what you are able to teach yourself) is what really divides the student from the professional. /* architectural curriculum? I think students will certainly see the benefits of 3D presentations and will implement it on their own. */ I agree. As for animation, I think it's strongest potential is at the emotional level (a very important level), not the design level. Stills can accomplish design evaluation far more effectively. Animation does it's thing at the bidding sessions, and at the initial owner consultations. Numerically (quantatively) speaking, for architecture, it's of little use. As one architectural colleague who uses 3DS very effectively now put it; "3D Studio addresses the _subjectivity_ of my projects." -dave