Proposed Solution for CA

[yusuf]

One thing on your example - WHY, oh why doesnt CA allow shadows to be viewed in elevtion sections??? That seems like a VERY simple thing to add. I do like the idea of using this for some of the elevations. I don't kno
-----------------------------------
That particular architect who works with Skecthup produces some amazing drawings.
I use Chief mostly for production drawings, not so much for 3D.
---------------------------
I c nothing at all here that chiefarchitect can not do!
Val i am not using x7,
ca does what you expect from it.
Johny still insists on cants. No sketch app here. your past thread is where i understood that ca has a lot more power than is some times understood.

[johnnyprc]

[QUOTE=marty;460590]Designing in 3D is not an automatic skill and I think it took me 2 or 3 years to abandon the pencil for concepts but now the speed I can produce concepts and subsequent variations in 3D is light years ahead of what I used to do.
QUOTE]

I guess what I keep trying to point out is that, as architects, we are taught to follow a path toward final working drawings. 3D, in the past, as been the "rendering/physical model building/illustration rendering" side of the process done after all the concept drawings and preliminary drawing sets are completed and approved by client - some call this setting the "program". Now, we are expected to throw this process on its head, and start with what was the 3rd or 4th stage - without the workthrough benefit of the first 1-4 steps that help define the "program". Of course it will be faster, since the design process is shortened. However, you can't tell me that skipping all the conceptual drawing steps results in the same thought-out product. Nor can you tell me that coming up with several concepts working up the entire 3D model each time is faster than drawing a little 2D section showing a concept. I have enough experiance to know thats not the case, and I included drawings to show what I mean....some said it would take days to model what took an hr. or less to draw in 2D.

I dont think CA needs to touch their main APP. I think, like Sketchup, they can take their layout program and add more 2D drawing tools so an architect can work through a more traditional process if they want to. Sketchup was designed for the 3D conceptualizing process, yet they still realized they needed stronger 2D to finish out the process as architects/designers wanted and needed.

I agree that CA has probably got the message, since I know one of their lead product designers reviewed the last long thread speaking about this. I'm just trying to help drive it home however I can - since I really like CA.

[dshall]

[QUOTE=johnnyprc;460619]

Designing in 3D is not an automatic skill and I think it took me 2 or 3 years to abandon the pencil for concepts but now the speed I can produce concepts and subsequent variations in 3D is light years ahead of what I used to do.
QUOTE]

I guess what I keep trying to point out is that, as architects, we are taught to follow a path toward final working drawings. ..........................

This is a very profound statement................... I think what Johnny is saying is that if we produce some renderings, these should be part and parcel of the FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS. Before a program such as CA, renderings where INDEPENDENT of the working drawings, in other words, they were not a by product of what the working drawings were becoming.

Johnny is very good at what he does, and I believe CA should seriously listen to what Johnny is recommending............... Johnny, have I paraphrased what your point is?

[dshall]

[QUOTE=dshall;460620]

This is a very profound statement................... I think what Johnny is saying is that if we produce some renderings, these should be part and parcel of the FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS. Before a program such as CA, renderings where INDEPENDENT of the working drawings, in other words, they were not a by product of what the working drawings were becoming.

Johnny is very good at what he does, and I believe CA should seriously listen to what Johnny is recommending............... Johnny, have I paraphrased what your point is?

That being said, I do not really know what CA should learn from this and learn from what Johnny said because I do not believe Johnny was very clear on what he was requesting. But I do know this............. "renderings these should be part and parcel of the FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS".

[johnnyprc]

Yes, along with the basic point that if you were to liken what we do to baking a cake, CA has developed a way to do the icing first and then back into the cake. Vectorworks, Autocad (with Sketchbook Designer) and Sketchup, have focused heavily on the "concept" drawings flowing into the model, and yet to can easily make your concepts finished details. CA has very primitive and "clunky" 2D tools - but a mastery on 3D.

MY FIX IS THIS: Make the Layout "sub-program" that exists a 2D wonderland, full of great 2D tools and hatch/textures (color) so we can more quickly create concepts and details and improve our 3D model data/drawings once they get to Layout. This way everything an architect/designer needs to do is under 1 APP. Why they are at it, I'd like to see them fix the line end issue so drawings look sharper.

I think this way they don't have to mess with their core program.

[yusuf]

you people r confused , here goes ca!
ok dear jhony it means i dont understand your complaint, but you can get this styles in chief,
I am not more knowlidgable than the founders(co ..... as you said),
But i can show you a lot more quates they r surprised with thier product's capability which doug says what i said above one good example
http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread....ally-dome-tips
. They did it and we use it and match the variables.
Line wieghts! May be a problem. I dont kow but 90% of your critique is personal and may be i dont follow your way of solving problems, then both of us r right for our selves. For example i dont start with crossection, i do a floor roughly then do the concept go to viz it, swiching between all views i reach a lot of alternatives to show to client

[William H Lynch]

I agree with Johnny, but yet then again with Yusuf, It all boils down to your personal style, and what you are used too... You can create magnificent stuff in in CA, just not in a way that will appeal to everyone, I personally have not had any complaints from customers do to CA limitations in presentations, but then again I would like to see Johnny's suggestions implemented... Variety is the spice of life!

Bill

[Sledge]

I don't know if I can put my finger on it, and as Bill (and others) said above, it is a matter of opinion. What Chief does, isn't bad, but the output in the examples that Johnny posted are better.

IMO the Chief examples posted still appear to be too "clinical", whilst the comparative others seem to have a better artistic feel.

Again, if you were presenting a portfolio from either output to a client, I am sure they would be "wowed" in either situation. (For the stuff I do, Chief seems to do its job)

Head to head in an art show, perhaps a different outcome, but the circular argument of opinion will drag on.

If I could add something as a suggestion (and please don't tell me about "workarounds", we all know and have discussed them ad infinitum), if Chief could add a "brochure" mode, perhaps similar in content to that discussed, that would be a bonus.

[William H Lynch]

I don't know if I can put my finger on it, and as Bill (and others) said above, it is a matter of opinion. What Chief does, isn't bad, but the output in the examples that Johnny posted are better.

IMO the Chief examples posted still appear to be too "clinical", whilst the comparative others seem to have a better artistic feel.

Again, if you were presenting a portfolio from either output to a client, I am sure they would be "wowed" in either situation. (For the stuff I do, Chief seems to do its job)

Head to head in an art show, perhaps a different outcome, but the circular argument of opinion will drag on.

If I could add something as a suggestion (and please don't tell me about "workarounds", we all know and have discussed them ad infinitum), if Chief could add a "brochure" mode, perhaps similar in content to that discussed, that would be a bonus.

That is what I was trying to say,

Thanks,
Bill

[johnnyprc]

Most of the CAD apps on the market started with refining 2D, now they are merging to make their apps 3D powerhouses, while leaving and sometimes improving the strong 2D tools and methods. I really think CA needs to make their layout "sub-application" support strong 2D....so the combination of CA's 3D tools is matched with great 2D.

The thing to remember -- software is just a tool. I am showing everyone drawings we can produce in other APPS, but with CA this just insn't possible at the level many architects/designers would like - not that they HAVE TO HAVE it, but I think everyone would like their drawings to look better. There is no way CA can expect to gain market share when these other apps are improving so quickly. CA seems to add "features" as if their core software is settled. I am trying to get across the fact the core software needs improvement to stay current.

Look at what sort of 3D modeling is making its way to mainstream - http://lumion3d.com/

I really think CA has something special, but they need to keep the ball moving forward a bit faster and work to be a COMPLETE CAD option for architects/designers...not just a modeler.

[perryh]

I really think CA has something special, but they need to keep the ball moving forward a bit faster and work to be a COMPLETE CAD option for architects/designers...not just a modeler.

The theory behind the model is that you don't need to do the cad. Cad is slowly going away. If they could get the model perfect then-----Cad gone for good. It's just not there yet.

[johnnyprc]

To get more "specific", look at the tools "add on" for Adobe Illustrator called "CAD TOOLS" - https://www.hotdoor.com/cadtools/overview

In fact, look at the example drawings - https://www.hotdoor.com/cadtools/samples

These kinds of tools added to Layout is really all that needs to happen. I think Layout should support filling things with Textures and Screens.

[johnnyprc]

perryh:

I dont agree really with how things sit. Look at the entertainment world, they have some of the best 3D people in the world, and they still very much use the "2D" process for concept work. Here is a school that features this art: http://www.fzdschool.com/

If you are right, and we should go right to 3D, then a new set of processes and techniques need to be honed to make it so we don't lose any creativity from the "current" taught and employed process. In that case I could agree with you.

Case in point as to why we are not there - all the other APPS make the concept process (2D) a major part of their software. It takes me 1-2 hrs to come up with those elevations in 2D color, when it would take me a day or two to model.

[perryh]

I think we are saying the same thing, modeling is really to make things easier for all of us. I was just thinking of the future. I really don't think you can't compare any other industry with ours, totally different.

[dshall]

The theory behind the model is that you don't need to do the cad. Cad is slowly going away. If they could get the model perfect then-----Cad gone for good. It's just not there yet.

I completely agree with Perry............ 3D is the future (should be the present), 2D will soon be phased out.