2d Architectural Design?

[tlehnhaeuser]

Hello All,

 

We have a client that likes to lay out their rough planning of a architectural design in the 2D drawing side first before moving to 3D. Although it sounds a bit backwards, it actually makes sense.

 

So I was wondering if anyone can shed light on the best approach to working in the 2D drawing laying out a house for instance at a scale from 1:1 using both feet and inches. When I investigate this, it appears:

 

1) I cannot work in feet and inches ( only add dimensions). What I suggest is enter ft X 12 in value fields to help. Is there a better solution?

 

2) It appears to work in 1:1 scale I need to scale up the paper size dramatic and then have to rememeber what the scale factor was when the time to print to paper comes. Is there a better solution?

 

I welcome any better alternatives to this.

thanks

tom

 

[Mike Twining]

Tom-

Are you saying this guy lays out his house in the 2D (drawing enviornment) first, or does he use a 2D sketch plane in the 3D (scene) first. I've used 2D sketches to lay out rooms and things in the past and it has worked well. If you select the correct printing options in 2D (either draft or precice... but only one works... I can't remember). You can see your 2D shapes, and scale as required.

 

Additionally, with a 2D shape, you can use the edges and what not to extrude with and snap to.

 

As for the architectural units (ft-in)... your options are either ft x 12 or in / 12 (like you already mentioned). You get used to it

 

EDIT:

The only not-so-minor drawback to the 2D shape method is that you need to periodically finish the shape to "save" your work. An accidental double-Esc to quit a tool and you just lost all your work.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Mike Twining

[tlehnhaeuser]

Hi Mike,

Actually, my client is a high school that is using IronCAD to teach Architectural and Product Design. The teachers have the students first lay out the plan view of their concepts to act as a "plan guide" before doing the actual 3D design. These 2D plans act as a reference for the 3D porttion.

I try to tell them to should conceptualize and actually design all in 3D, however they realize this but want their students to learn from the ground up and follow a "workflow" they have implemented in their curriculum.

So the need to 2D draft the design is an important function to them.

 

SO I guess this turns into a ER that theirs a way to draw large scale items 1:1 without changing paper size and also to enter values using ft-in.

 

thanks for the help

Tom

 

[cborer]

Tom

I think they are going the wrong way.

For archidechture I always start in 3d especially for the concept!

A room is a shape that is shelled in wall thickness.

That way it is so easy to move around, changing size, length, etc.

I even would say IC is perfect for architecture concept from the very first moment.

But in 3d!

If the teacher wants a plan first let him make a plan for him or just work in the look at view.

 

On the other side: Architecture is 3d somehow it is stupid to start in 2d

 

Good Luck

Carlo

 

PS when beginning with IC my problem was that I always first wanted to start in 2d, which is wrong when you work with IC, as the 3d part is that easy, logic, fast to go, fast to change and so much fun!

Edited January 15, 2008 by cborer

[dhovatter]

Tom

I agree with Mike T.

Using the "2D Shape" tool in the 3D Scene is better and more tools are available to draw with too. Then when it is brought to 2D the paper size can be small since the drawing can be scaled there.

If they want to go the ground up route use pencel and paper first then build in 3D.

 

Dallas

 

 

[Mike Allen]

If I can remember back to my initial CAD training in the early 1990s (after we passed the initial board drafting skills), we worked in AutoCAD's 3D model space at 1:1, even if we were only doing 2D work. The 2D paper space was only for title blocks (and maybe dimensions.)

 

I don't see any reason why it should be any different today with IronCAD. Work in the scene (with either 2D shapes, or full extrusions.) Then create a drawing to view their sketch. They can dimension in either the scene or the drawing. No need to make a drawing sheet any bigger than can be printed.

[Marcus Bertilsson]

We use this metod alot but what we do is making the first consepts in AutoCAD. It is partly because there are others involved that use only 2D.

We get a portion of a map for example where we shall place the buildings, and we maybe also get drawings of other buildings, all as 2D dwg.

 

What I realy would like to have is the possibility to have a dwg as a link so if I change the dwg it update in the scene. And it should look the same in IC as in AutoCAD keeping linetype and anotations.

 

In this way we could corporate more having realy good 3D/2D power.

 

/ Marcus

[tlehnhaeuser]

Mike,

I'm exploring your approach to propsed to them. However, some immediate issues pop-up:

 

1.) I cannot use the 2D catalogs (architectural) in the 3d Scene.

2.) I really dont have the ability to enter values in a ft-in format. It must be either feet or inches.

3.) Since your working eithin a "command" I see failing to save in a consistent and timely manner will become a major problem and loss of alot of data.

3. The ability to use the advanced handles on profiles are not available. I.e. Edit distance from point , point being actually on the 2D profle (shape).

 

This being said, I think this approach as merit, but requires some ERS to make it "fool-proof".

 

thanks

Tom

 

 

[Mike Allen]

To my way of thinking, the sketch is the only thing that would be in the scene. Everything else would be created in the drawing (dimensions, notes, architectural elements.) It isn't a perfect solution for things out of the 2D catalogs, since they would be associative to the view only - you couldn't attach them to features in the view. Maybe they would require a scene catalog of architectural elements done as 2D shapes.

 

You can change the properties to the dimensions in the drawing - even if you dimension the sketch in the scene. Granted, you won't see feet/inches when working on the sketch, but the drawing output could still be feet/inches.

 

I think I'd be tempted to break the sketch into modules - for instance, a room at a time (or even a wall at a time), to keep from having one giant sketch that might be lost if there is a crash before saving. All the modules could be grouped into assemblies.

 

I don't know what to do about the last point. Carlo has the best solution - just work with 3D extrusions. There's almost no difference in IronCAD between a 2D sketch and converting that sketch to a 3D extrusion. You could work almost entirely in plan view, but gain the benefits of the TriBall, etc.