ACUE 2003 Encounter Group Notes |
<back> Matthew Lohden's Encounter Group |
| Introductions: Matthew Lohden, Expert AC8 Consultant • Moderator/Facilitator Peter Robinshaw, Novice AC8 • Uses ACAD LT Thomas Holm, Expert (since '92) AC7 • Small res projects • Not using 8 yet Hakim Khenouchi, (since '92) AC8 1500 person firm. • Having problems w/DWG converter Kevin Fitzgerald, Intermediate AC8 Small practice. • Switched from Vectorworks • DXF/DWG conversion difficult Mike Hohmann, Int/Expert AC8 Sole practice. • Window making is painful • Artlantis 4.5 is fantastic; allows elevation to scale Judith Perry, Int/Expert AC8 Sole Practice • Doors & windows need improvement • Wish for sloping walls & floors for out of plumb/level conditions Peter Bennison, Int/Expert AC8 Sole Practice • Various retail and commercial projects Alan Taylor, Int/Expert AC8 Sole Practice • Switched from MicroGDS. • Huge productivity improvement • Uses Theometric doors & windows • Would like better/easier sketch rendering • Having problems with favorites |
|
|
2. Difficulties with doors and windows were a common complaint. It seems to be generally difficult for most firms to find doors & windows that work the way they would like. The Theometric libraries were recommended by those who use them. Some firms write their own libraries. No one seemed to consider the included doos & windows to be adequate. 3. DWG file import & export was generally considered to be troublesome. Most agreed that exported files should be vetted in AutoCAD before sending them outside the firm. Those familiar with ArchiCAD 8 agreed that it is much improved over version 7 in this area. 4. It was also widely agreed that ArchiCAD provided the greatest overall productivity of any architectural CAD software (not surprising at ArchiCAD University). Several who had converted from other programs noted significant to major increases in productivity. 5. The ability to create preset links between ArchiCAD and PlotMaker template files was a popular suggestion for the wish list. 6. The limitations of ArchiCAD photo rendering was discussed. Artlantis and Cinema 4D were recommended as good alternatives for high end rendering solutions. Artlantis was highly regarded as providing good quality with good speed and ease of use. Cinema 4D was regarded as capable of higher quality rendering with the added benefit of sophisticated modeling and rendering capabilities, but with a steeper learning curve and less convenient translation from ArchiCAD, 7. Several agreed that the ability to model sloping or tilting walls and floors would be very useful for accurately representing existing conditions. This was particularly true for those working with old and historic buildings, though some designing new buildings would also find these features useful. 8. There was wide agreement that the sketch rendering tools need improvement. Easier setup, faster rendering and useful presets were among the leading wishes. The ability to save and exchange rendering settings would also make the feature much more useful. Matthew Lohden |
|