Chief Vs Autocad

[perryh]

Apparently you don't see the irony here. "Real world" experience can also blind you to new and innovative design solutions. One of the main points of going to school is to immerse yourself in pure design for a while, learn the history of your profession, etc. before your creativity gets bogged down and you start thinking it's all been done and there is never anything new.

No it doesn't, that's just silly. hopefully everyone is always learning new design techniques, I still am. Where do you think these things up.

[johnnyprc]

I am sorry Perry but your response to what Bryce is saying is missing a key element - what you might consider "pure design", and what it means to explore pure design. I think it would be very important for someone exploring design to be part of a group, headed by an experienced leader. In a nutshell that is what a University gives you, a structured place to stay (for most part) out of the commercialized industry where everything is so dictated by one constraint after another.

Can someone replicate this process outside of school? I am sure its possible, but not probable. Perhaps you and others on this forum are the exception to that rule, but I don't think most self/world taught designers have the same experience to bring forward in real and practical structures.

[RMorrison]

I won't speak for Doug, as he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. But I think his point about considering the specific needs of licensed architects is well-taken. Someone who has been formally trained in design works and thinks about design differently than self-taught people. Also, the documentation needs of licensed architects are frequently different than unlicensed individuals. Licensed professionals are legally required to perform to a higher standard than an unlicensed person, and they often must document things that someone who is working directly for a contractor, or who is a design-builder, doesn't, either because of the fiduciary responsibility, the need for competitive bids, or because the expected design quality is higher.

[jcaffee]

Perhaps, and this is my own experience in commercial software development, having perspectives from each customer segment is an overall good thing for the product. Perry, please grow a skin. I don't believe Doug's statement re: more architect input required such a defensive response. Quite the contrary; CA should be encouraged to aggressively seek input from their entire professional user base via an industry advisory group.

So, beyond designers, draftspeople, licensed architects, and licensed interior designers; perhaps including 3D artists, game/virtual world designers, and sector management folks into an industry advisory panel would help focus product management and development.

I won't get into participation with industry initiatives such as OpenBIM as it's late and I'm cranky.

Oh, and a dig at major university architecture programs in the U.S. How, in this day, can any school graduate a student who is not proficient in CAD and 3D computer tools? How? (I know of at least three major programs that don't even require a passing grade in computer-based design as a condition of their degree)

jon

[perryh]

I am sorry Perry but your response to what Bryce is saying is missing a key element - what you might consider "pure design", and what it means to explore pure design. I think it would be very important for someone exploring design to be part of a group, headed by an experienced leader. In a nutshell that is what a University gives you, a structured place to stay (for most part) out of the commercialized industry where everything is so dictated by one constraint after another.

Can someone replicate this process outside of school? I am sure its possible, but not probable. Perhaps you and others on this forum are the exception to that rule, but I don't think most self/world taught designers have the same experience to bring forward in real and practical structures.

This argument has been an ongoing argument since I've been around here and it never ends, "Pure Design" ? give me a break. If everyone was honest with themselves, Unless you are an elite Architect getting the big bucks, you are not doing anything that hasn't been done before. If you are then your not doing it in Chief. Very rarely these days is anything new, and I don't think anyone here is doing that.

[johnnyprc]

This argument has been an ongoing argument since I've been around here and it never ends, "Pure Design" ? give me a break. If everyone was honest with themselves, Unless you are an elite Architect getting the big bucks, you are not doing anything that hasn't been done before. If you are then your not doing it in Chief. Very rarely these days is anything new, and I don't think anyone here is doing that.

What you are saying doesn't relate to what I meant. "Pure design" exploration is more a process of learning and experimenting in an environment where you are specifically tasked to do so, while adding guiding principles and critique (by yourself and others). 99% of what we do isn't considered "pure design", but we do bring with us what we have learned in that process and apply it in our work. Not many clients come to us and say "use my structure as an experiment"...

I would relate Scotts videos as a subtle process of "pure learning"...he is learning without a specific structure of what you would find in say a CA training video - or a programmed mission. He is exploring CA, using non-reality based missions (or someone else's issue to start) to get a better understanding of each direction a certain tool or process. Imagine the value for us if CA then had a trainer review Scotts videos, and then give us his input as a "professor" would. All of us would then benefit from that layered approach and we would benefit from knowing the right way and wrong way to do things (though in design its more subjective). I propose that process would be much more informative than someone freelancing their learning of the app - but I am sure it can be done.

[perryh]

Doesn't everyone do that and bring what they have learned to their work, what makes you special, many here have learned in college. I don't believe college had as much to offer then real experience.

[Doug Park]

I didn't mean to spark an architect vs. non architect designer debate. This is not the place to be throwing mud at any profession.

Architects as professionals deserve respect. They earned a degree that requires a certain minimum level of intelligence and a lot of hard work that someone who didn't go through would not really understand.

Non architects also deserve respect, considering that they are able to do designs and compete in a market against architects they must have some talent on their side.

We can choose to learn from each other and improve ourselves and Chief, or not.

[perryh]

Now that's a fair statement,

[sutcac]

"Pure Design" ? give me a break. If everyone was honest with themselves, Unless you are an elite Architect getting the big bucks, you are not doing anything that hasn't been done before. If you are then your not doing it in Chief. Very rarely these days is anything new, and I don't think anyone here is doing that.

This kind of mentality is nothing new either, and yet new things keep happening. Who was even talking about sustainable building practices in this country just a few decades ago? Now it's the norm, even part of the California Building Code. No, we all can't be cutting edge designers all the time, but we can decide not to just resign ourselves to whatever box current design paradigms try to put you in. I think a formal design education gives you the perspective to not always just be going along with the herd in everything you do and it gives you the tools to actually make that happen in the "real world", whatever the heck that is.

[Ron Ravenscroft]

Our customer base is dominated by design/build professionals.

However, architects do influence our design decisions significantly. I like to push for features that are more requested by architects because they really do know what they are doing when it comes to design and are asking for things that some of our design/build professionals don't know they need. For example the space planning tools (House Wizard) is something that most architects recognize immediately as a valuable design aid.

As we move forward I believe that the influence from architects will greatly improve the quality of the program.

With all due respect, from my view it possibly the opposite. Being able to complete Construction drawings without a few work-a-rounds is a real problem for me. Schedules are mostly useless with quite a bit of effort. My latest thorn is know Chief treats pocket doors and gives an incorrect header size. I'm not a programmer but it seems a couple lines of code would solve the problem. I think Dan you should do a soul searching look at chief and find ways to simplify chief. for example if I want transparent text and dimension numbers I should be able to say so with 1 DBX for the entire program. As one who has been using Chief since version 4 I feel that Chief has vastly improved. But this improvement is at the expense of complexity.
And last of all lets get off the chip on the shoulder with the Designer/Architect thing. We all are here to use a tool and to complete projects. We all can learn from each other. I, as an architect have learned many useful things from our designer friends.

[perryh]

And last of all lets get off the chip on the shoulder with the Designer/Architect thing

Yes ,Ron, it never ends with some people.

[sutcac]

And it always starts with some people.

[lbuttery]

so, it started - now let it end....

Lew

[a9284456]

I learned a lot in Architecture school but learned very little about how to design a building in the real world.
After countless hours of design studios it seems the professors (mostly uppity black turttle neck wearing types) only prefferred the most outlandish and unbuildable solutions. It was an awakening when I started working in for an Architect who had to make a living at it and someone pointed out that you need to follow the building code or use materials that people can afford.....

All of today's overreaching rules and regulations from zoning to building to energy codes does takes alot of the creative energy out of it. (I guess I am just burnt out)

Unfortunatly In many parts of the country today not having an RA or PE limits your options regardless of your design skills
Ok rant over and by the way there is nothing Auto about Autocad