Structural Drafting and Cad
Structural Drafting and Cad
(OP)
I'm a one-man structural engineering office. I own AutoCad.....but....due to my fear that my clients would begin using Revit (which none of them have) I purchased the Autodesk Building Design Suite that included AutoCad and Revit. I am on subscription.
I know there is a cad forum on this site, but, I want to talk only with structural engineers in my shoes who use AutoCad.
Renewal is close to $1,000 bucks a year for my single seat.....and.....my reseller (Advanced Solutions) wants another $375 for a year's worth of support. I tried to attend a Advanced Solution seminar on Revit and ended up leaving half-way thru the seminar as I had more knowledge of Revit, having never used it, than the instructor. Very disappointing.
That being said, is there a better reseller out there or are they all about the same? Not a single one of my clients use Revit.....and those who have tried it found that it killed their drawing quality. I have found that most who claim to use it actually build a crude model in it, only to do the actual production drawings in normal 2D AutoCad. The 3D work that my clients use to illustrate projects to clients are actually done in Sketch-Up and then we do 2D AutoCad drawings.My questions are:
- Who has had good service from a reseller and who is that reseller.
- Can I get a yearly renewal less expensive than $1,000 for one seat?
- In this specific industry (structural engineering for commercial buildings) is Revit the future or some other program that's better?
[/li][/ul]
I know there is a cad forum on this site, but, I want to talk only with structural engineers in my shoes who use AutoCad.
Renewal is close to $1,000 bucks a year for my single seat.....and.....my reseller (Advanced Solutions) wants another $375 for a year's worth of support. I tried to attend a Advanced Solution seminar on Revit and ended up leaving half-way thru the seminar as I had more knowledge of Revit, having never used it, than the instructor. Very disappointing.
That being said, is there a better reseller out there or are they all about the same? Not a single one of my clients use Revit.....and those who have tried it found that it killed their drawing quality. I have found that most who claim to use it actually build a crude model in it, only to do the actual production drawings in normal 2D AutoCad. The 3D work that my clients use to illustrate projects to clients are actually done in Sketch-Up and then we do 2D AutoCad drawings.
- Who has had good service from a reseller and who is that reseller.
- Can I get a yearly renewal less expensive than $1,000 for one seat?
- In this specific industry (structural engineering for commercial buildings) is Revit the future or some other program that's better?
[/li][/ul]






RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Sort of like that genius who stated that computers would never become a feature with the average person.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Your's is a negative ("nothing ever will replace...").
We are already doing 60% of our work in BIM and eventually 2D drawings will be archaic in my view.
Larger contractors are already replacing paper drawings with pdf's on large table screens.....not too far away from a 3D model using holographic images on the go!
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Being in the UK, I don't think I can help you there.
See above.
Tough one. I had a couple of jobs passed to me for a facade retention design, in which, all the drawings had been generated using Revit. They where utterly appalling and I refused to believe they had ever been issued in that state and requested the original Revit file. It really was that bad. Whether it is the program that's lacking or the draftmans knowledge of 3D modeling wasn't up to scratch I don't know but it did warrant a full redraw.
Some of the larger fabricators over here swear by it (and other programs such as StruCAD) and, in the hands of an experienced 3D designer, Some of the drawings they produced were amazing (not to mention that they had the program designing end connections and splices and all that jazz) but to get to that stage you need a very expensive designer with a great computer and at least, a dual screen set up to monitor the 2D plans as they go. Bit much for a one man band and far too much time spent on a single project.
/ramble
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Our local reseller has a great REVIT guy so the classes are very useful. Of course they also have a couple of useless REVIT people so you need to make sure you get the class taught by the good one. I don't think I am supposed to post their website and such on these pages so not sure how to give you their info.
As for cost, I think we pay about the same per seat. I doubt there is much difference reseller to reseller
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
#1 - I have not found a group that is consistently great. I have had good service and bad service with several including Advanced Solutions. Some of this just depends on who you work with. Some of the best have been smaller, regional outfits so without knowing where you are, it is difficult to give recommendations.
#2 - I don't think $1000 is out of the ordinary. This seems in line with my experience.
#3 - I am a past AutoCad junkie and never thought Revit would pan out. My new company uses Revit exclusively...even with architects who use AutoCAD. Now, I will not open AutoCAD unless I don't have to. I respectfully disagree with anyone who says drawings produced in Revit are inferior to those produced by AutoCAD. Drawing quality is a function of the producer, not the software being utilized. I have seen great and poor drawings done using any variety of products.
Here are some thoughts to back up my beliefs about Revit:
- Revit is a model. AutoCAD is a drawing. This requires different workflows, organization, and a different approach to design. Those who try to "draft" with Revit are usually disappointed. Those who recognize the power of a model will rarely go back to AutoCAD
- Not being able to use "your shortcuts" does not equal inferiority. Just because you "have your keys" set up in AutoCAD and can change a polyline in 2 clicks but it takes 3 clicks to modify a column in Revit does not mean AutoCAD is better. That third click in Revit just changed the 3 sections associated with column, how it was labeled in three floor plans, and updated your column schedule instantly. I'd be hard pressed to find many CAD users who can guarantee their changes make it into every detail in their set.
- Time is money. Revit is more efficient. Period. This is especially true for those who recognize the power of a model versus a drawing. A model can be integrated with analysis software to capture design changes on the fly and change all of the annotation associated with these changes by simply changing it in one location. How many engineers, draftsman, and checkers does it take to get these changes done in AutoCAD? Anyone have extra hours to spend on a project to check these things?
- Knowledge is power. The more information you can feel confident in putting on your drawings; the more confident the architect will be in their design, the easier the contractor will be able to build what you want, and the more money the owner will save in changes. I don't have to leave dimensions and elevations off my drawing anymore for fear things are not coordinated. I can put them on with confidence because I have overlayed, viewed, rotated, and cut every aspect of the building I am concerned with. Now I am confident to include any information I think the users of my drawing need without leaving doubt in their minds about what I intended.
I could go on and get into some very specific project related things where BIM/Revit has saved major dollars and frustration on a project. But the bottom line is that most people who actually buy into the "Modeling" aspect of Revit end up very satisfied. Those that never really commit to making the changes in their approach/workflow and even to a degree, their staff levels, usually end up disappointed and make comments about how it isn't as good as AutoCAD.
No, Revit isn't perfect. So, if the only thing that will get you away from AutoCAD is when something perfect comes along, then this isn't it. I believe it solves more problems than it creates. And I believe it resolves many of the shortcomings of AutoCAD without at least matching its performance. But again, I think it comes down to the user.
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
I can input an AutoCAD 35 meg 3D drawing in it... modify it and send it on to our drafting department and they can work on it or whatever with not a 'glitch'...
I've had the program 'lock up' twice in the 4 years I've been using it and have gracefully recovered the lost work.
Dik
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Only twice in 4 years.....if only Autodesk could match that kind of track record
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
In all the 3D models I've seen that involved multiple materials there was always an interference of some sort clearly visible. I've seen steel flanges interfering with walls and even a missing column on one occasion. And yes, mistakes can be made in any format and anything can ultimately be modeled given enough time and manpower but at what cost?
In my opinion the need for 2D details will go away the same time that buildings can be fully automatically designed with the push of a button...at which point there will be no need for engineers anyway.
At this point these computer devices are no longer new-fangled. Both they and the attendant software have been around long enough that if 3D modeling were to completely supplant 2D drafting it would have happened by now. While not completely analogous it nevertheless reminds me of the perennial talk of wind and solar power supplying all our energy needs. I constantly hear that it's going to happen but that we're just not quite there yet. (To be repeated the following year...)
Just my opinion, of course.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
It is a database that has the ability to graphically display its data.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
It's not my cup of tea. Perhaps some day I'll be forced to use it but that hasn't happened yet. I'm sure I'll leave a trail of fingernail marks the whole way...
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
I hope I retire before I am forced to use it. I am on a Mac anyway and use a the best 2D program available on any platform.
I get to see tons of drawings come across my desk each year as I do alot of metal stud shop drawings. The quality of 2d drawings seems to be in decline and I assume it is because they are created in Revit or similar and the sections are cut from there.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
I have been tried to be sold for 15 years, the idea of a heavenly 3D software that will do all for me. The time has not come and do not think it will. IMO the nature of our graphical and analytical work is Two Dimensional. Period. It is a nonsense to even try to suggest drawing a detail in three dimensions. Overkill and neither feasible, nor practical. No matter what software new wonder comes out. To me, right there lies the strength of AutoCAD. The work of engineers and all that has been built has been represented in two dimensions for centuries. It is part of our nature.....I believe.
Thats my take and respect other beliefs.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
http://www.nceng.com.au/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Dik
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Whether BIM specifically develops as the preferred design tool (vs. 2D cad) I don’t claim to know – but saying that 2D is here to stay….not sure I’d say that.
You may have read many of these but they are somewhat entertaining:
"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys."—Sir William Preece, chief engineer, British Post Office, 1876
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication."—Western Union internal memo, 1876.
“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
“The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.” — The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903
“Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.
“The cinema is little more than a fad. It’s canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage.” -– Charlie Chaplin, actor, producer, director, and studio founder, 1916
“Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” – Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."—Darryl Zanuck, 20th Century Fox, 1946
"There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television or radio service inside the United States."—T.A.M. Craven, Federal Communications Commission commissioner (1961)
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.
"Everyone's always asking me when Apple will come out with a cell phone. My answer is, 'Probably never.'"—David Pogue, The New York Times, 2006
“We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
PE, SE
Eastern United States
"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
I have no knowledge of revit apart from viewing youtube and what has been told to me.
I would like to pursue one day (but not today).
Autocad for me is enough and its great for me at this point. I know that it is based on lines rather than true building elements, but it is still a model it produces.
Even paper drawings are models of the structures we build.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Being that the design industry seems to be more and more influenced by contractor's and design build, I repeat, BIM is here to stay.
Right now, Revit seems to have the most traction for BIM modeling of complicated structures. I agree, if the you're designing a storage building with minimal coordination needed, BIM would be a waste of time. But for a complicated, plant or hospital, BIM is very useful for the contractor, and can be useful to the designer.
I also agree 100% that the workflow using Revit is different than CADD. You have to think about managing your model rather than drafting your design. Which parameters will be part of the object and drive your schedules? and which things will simply be a detail line or annotation. This is something we still struggle with... do you model every single parameter in the object and then let your auto tagging bring it to life.. or do you just add the text for some parameters...So many ways to do it, so little time these days.
The cost of the software is significant, and $1000 a seat is about right as someone else noted.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Now on my own, I've been using a 2D product called ProgeCAD since 2008 that is very much like ACAD (like my shoes, it's Italian
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
Interesting discussion. I remember a couple of decades ago I was in a discussion regarding 2d cad and hand drawings. The consensus was that cad would be good for some of the drawings. But for example detailing would be "by hand". Cad could never compete. We now know what happened, the software became better and cheaper as did the computer. And the guy who did the hand drawings retired some years ago, at least where I work.
Where I work everything is cad and a lot of it is 3d. But note, when I say 3d cad I mean 3d modelling, not a 3d model made from lines. 2d cad, like autocad, is (in my experience) often a database for lines. 3d often means objects but inside for example Revit there can be 2d drawings. I have colleagues who model a simple concrete slab in Revit, simply because it is faster.
We also have tools like Tekla Structures where there is no 2d modelling. It is all in 3d including the full detailing.
For us I would say that Revit is part of the future as will Tekla Structures. I am not as sure about AutoCad though.
Personally, I don't use any of them. I work with structural calculations in a general FEM - software. But regardless of what you do and what your software is called you need to know how to use it properly.
I have yet to meet somebody who wants to go back to a "simpler" software after properly learning to use a more advanced. They simply are more efficient. Some of the projects we have had could not have been made in 2d within the timeframe, period. To produce thousands of drawing with no errors in the measurements given, that requires a full 3d approach in my opinion. You can't have "some" 2d drawings attached.
But it is a personal opinion, the future will give us the answer. Anybody who claims that 2d "by hand" is still unbeatable
Regards
Thomas
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
I think the use of paper drawings has a really good place: to let me sign something that is simple enough to understand and be built, without ambiguity. But 3D CAD, and by extension "full BIM", have the potential to make things better for all of us, once the tools are available and easy to use. They are not really there yet, and the best ones are very expensive (and Revit is NOT necessarily the best BIM software, it is just ubiquitous.)
Right now, engineers are the ones who suffer BIM, while architects, owners, and contractors get the benefits. But this shouldn't surprise any of us. We don't get paid enough as it is, and asking us to do more, using expensive and complicated tools, for the same or lower fees, is just par for the course. Please embrace BIM, but do so only for commensurate fees.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
For a quick sketch issued on site it is.
That aside, one of my issues with a 3-D model vs. a 2-D drawing is that the 3-D model is more of a picture while the 2-D drawing can be schematic. This has some implications. A 2-D drawing pushes the detailing down to the fabricators who issue shop drawings for review. A 3-D model pushes it back up to the designer, at least to some extent. And yes, I realize that there is file-sharing between the two, but the model still originates from the original designer, usually. Maybe that's a good thing, but it will be interesting to keep an eye out for the legal issues related to this that will no-doubt eventually arise.
Another issue is that there is more pressure for a 3-D model/picture to be perfect. In a 2-D schematic drawing a beam can be represented by a simple line. In a 3-D model/picture the flanges show up, which then interfere with the column unless the flange is coped away, the right connection shown, etc. So, the model doesn't look "right" until the bulk of the detailing is performed.
It puts pressure on the generalist to become a specialist in all disciplines and no one can do that very well.
Just my $.02.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
I thought we were discussing drawings, not sketches
But I also think it may be a cultural thing. If I understand you correct you don't usually produce the shop drawings, we do. We usually do everything from the design to the final drawings for the (for example) steel manufacturer. I know that in some countries it is common to produce schematic drawings and than review the fabricators shop drawings. But I also hear that the concept of BIM which is to not redo things in different systems.
We often (usually) do the complete design and the shop drawings. Usually not the same person but within a team. But sometimes one person does the analysis and the 3d modelling as well as the shop drawings for the steel. But that often means a small and uncomplicated project.
Regards
Thomas
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
It is truly elegant when properly implemented, and is a nightmare when pieced together from incompatible models and data. The mechanism of interchange is a common set of descriptions for data (i.e., the database structure), and as long as all software is aware of these descriptions and uses them as agreed by the industry, interchange is (usually) flawless.
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
RE: Structural Drafting and Cad
For steel it is in some respects routine for us today. 3D model and all the way to shop drawings is fairly routine with Tekla Structures. When we use Revit we usually export the model to Tekla because Revit is not as strong in the steel detailing. But Revit will improve as will Tekla. And I'm sure there are other software's that I haven't mentioned.
Reinforced concrete is another story. For steel we have done it for perhaps 15+ years but for concrete it younger, perhaps 5 years. We have done it completely for some complicated geometries including bars, bends and so on. It is possible but not "routine" as it is with steel. Usually you end up with a combination of methods. Like a 3d model and then drawing the bars on a 2d cad exported from 3d or 2d inside Revit. But I think that within a few years the use of 2d AutoCad will be significantly smaller. I thing you have to reach some kind of "critical knowledge" and then it changes. If haven't done it before you can't be sure and than you are more careful. If you fell safe you just do it.
You mentioned sketches and we have people who sketch 2d "by hand" but they usually don't use cad at all. As for "2d on site", sure but that is not really a software issue. It's just being practical. I think 2d vs 3d is to some extent a matter of generations but also a matter of how you feel about change. Some embrace it while others don't. But I'm not saying that all change is good.
The discussion that I hear is usually not 2d or 3d, it is 3d or 4d or even 5d. They want to add money and planning (time) to the models. And we have done so in some projects. But that is still a work in progress, we are not there yet.
Regards
Thomas