There are a lot of acad 3rd party add-ins for architecture and civil
engineering. Back in the early 90s, I started out on acad 10 (command line
on DOS). I remember a couple of add-on packages (i think one called topo
and
one called desktop?) that would help create 3d terrain and 3d buildings
from
simple 2d line drawings. For example to do a building you choose the type
of
wall from a menu (e.g., standard 2x4 studs with drywall) draw the room
outline, and the software creates the wall complete with the elevation.
Select a symbol for a standard door and place it in the wall. The software
would cut the wall, add the jambs, and place the door. It would also
generate the elevation views so you could render and plot the front of the
building, etc. It was very efficient and very customizable (you could
record
macros or write your own routines in autolisp). Used a tablet instead of a
mouse and had all the standard wall types and symbols programmed on it.
Been
away from that environment for quite a while, but it was quite fun to use.
For terrain, just sketch the contour lines and apply the elevation (or
input
data from a surveyor's file) and it would generate what would amount to a
topographical map. Very simple and quick. I'm sure that industry's
software
(AEC) has improved quite a bit since then. I think even compared to that
software in the 1990s that solidworks would be very difficult to use for
AEC.
"CADaholic" <CADaholic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:dc8dcfa5-3494-40a8-be83-3f632c94a002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
point about the visualization aspect. That was really one
of the reasons for my inquiry. I'm working with a company that is
laying out building sites in AutoCAD. Everyone is talking about how
im****tant it is to be able to visualize the site in 3 dimensions. "So
why are you using a 2D CAD package?" So there's the visualization,
the ease of use and the fact that Solidworks is parametric while
AutoCAD isn't.
Granted, I've been away from AutoCAD for a long time, but the
unpleasant aspects appear to still be there. It looks terribly
inefficient compared to what can be done in SW.
Thanks.
On May 12, 8:52 pm, TOP <kelln...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I tried some years ago. Led to a discussion about tolerances and
> limits in SW. Here are some major sticking points for SW whether
> architecture or industrial.
>
> 1. The 500M radius limit. Can't build parts bigger than this. On a
> project built on 14 acres I ran into this.
> 2. Lack of a contour loft. Was proposed to SW at SWW2000 for dealing
> with contours from a CMM. No action. CATIA has it. So does Autodesk.
> 3. Poor performance with models that have huge number so small
> repetitive features. In the industrial world this means grills, PC
> boards, etc.
> 4. Assembly speed. Buildings are notorious for simple highly
> repetitive parts. Mating these can be a big job. Stability of the
> mates is another thing. This was a major sticking point to
> implementation in the RV and manufactured housing industry.
> 5. SW is sickenly slow when reading the typical architectural/site
> drawings from ACAD. Just too many lines.
>
> Some plusess that could really make SW take off in Civil:
>
> 1. Solidmodeling does have an application in earthmoving/landscaping
> because it is so easy to remove and add solid volumes.
> 2. Solidmodeling also has application in actually visualizing what a
> project will look like before, during and after construction.
> 3. Solidmodeling can better predict what is going on underground. To
> better understand this statement you would have had to have watched a
> project at the end of my road where two high lines, a water main, a
> sewer, a storm sewer, a high pressure oil pipeline, fiber optics,
> telephone and a few other things crossed over in a major intersection.
> And this is a country road.
>
> TOP
|
