solidworks for architecture

Hi,

Do architects, or schools of architecture, include solidworks as a
software choice? An architect friend of mine told me that solidworks
is a good tool for architects: that it is good for visualization of
buildings. Now that I've started using the program, I am doubtful.
It seems so geared towards mechanical parts and such. Please let me
know what you think.

Thanks,

Tom

 

A building is a collection of mechanical parts just larger than usual.
AutoCAD, SolidWorks, Inventor it is all the same to me.

Bob

Bob

 

interesting in that it is a 4 year old item- I am inclined to wonder
what their experience was/is and how many others have followed suit ?

 

<> skrev i en meddelelse

According to their own webpage http://www.permasteelisa.com/ they are using
Catia.

But lates news says they are going for Autodesk Revit
http://www.autodesk.com/revit

The company is rather big and has some divisions in different countries,
therefore it's also plausible that they use a variety of CAD platforms.


Regards
Peter

 

I use mainly SolidWorks at work, but also little bit ArchiCAD (I'm
working with furniture development and we need to model auditoriums
etc. and place chairs/tables there). ArchiCAD is great with
buildings, but poor with furniture (well, if you know how to program
GDL you might think differently). I need both, so I use both...and
that works ok. Only real problem is to transfer the furniture to the
building (import SW-made stuff to ArchiCAD).

Before we got ArchiCAD I had to use SW, and I managed, but especially
patterning chairs and tables was really slow (easily 500 chairs in an
auditorium and each chair has around 20...30 parts so you get lots of
components there and patterning made it really slow).

So, my opinion:
If yoy design furniture, use SW, it's really good.
If you are designing buildings, you can use SW, but ArchiCAD is made
for buildings so it has really nice features for the job.
If you need to build furniture and buildings with furniture, use both.

 

Any software craps out if you use too much detail where it is not needed.

Bob

 

SW is very awkward at architecture or Civil Engineering in general. I
think the Sears Tower would be difficult to impossible simply because of
its size and certainly some of the newer tall buildings. The parts count
in a building is astronomical by SW standards. That being said SW can
perhaps handle piping in a plant on a limited basis. You would be
spending all your time on workarounds and SW wouldn't support you.

That being said, I did see a company develop an add in for SW to allow
the design and modeling of buildings made from pre-fabricated, pre-cast
concrete panels. They played some tricks to get the assembly size down.

TOP

 

For an architectural solid model I see no reason that SolidWorks would be
worse than any other software.

Bob

 

And that my friend is why SW has problems with architecture.

Any civil print I have ever seen is filled with symbolism that takes
the place of the actual detail needed to build a structure. For example,
the carpenter, not the architect, makes the final decision as to the
dimension to cut a particular board. The electrician "follows" the
print, but the print doesn't necessarily tell the electrician the
dimensions to cut a particular wire. The electrician follows practice
which may be specified on the print, but is not shown. 3D CAD tends to
require all the minute detail to work correctly.

3D CAD simply doesn't have the tools in it to deal with detail symbolism
or the vagaries of construction materials.

TOP

 

1. You are quite limited in the physical size of the model you can make.
2. You cannot use drafting shorthand methods in 3D modeling in the same
way the 2D crowd does it.
3. The links to PDM and ERP in SW are not as honed as those for some
other packages.

Reread what I said in the previous post.

TOP

 

http://ptc.com/products/cadds5
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/modeling-foundation
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/concurrent-assembly-option
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/electrical-and-outfitting-design-option
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/clash-detection-and-management-solution
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/harness-and-cabling-option
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/hvac-and-outfitting-design-option
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/piping-and-outfitting-design-option
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/shipbuilding-and-design-option
http://ptc.com/products/cadds5/structural-steel-and-hull-design-option

Etc.

 

The only thing I would use SolidWorks for is an architectural solid model, I
prefer AutoCAD for that though. For mechanical solids I prefer SolidWorks to
Inventor. My favorite is whatever someone will pay me to draw with at the
time.

Bob

 

This is about the level of complexity you want to deal with.

AutoCAD 2007, 2008 does a better job of printing.

http://geocities.com//house.pdf

SolidWorks 2008, You need to make subassemblies from the individual parts.
You need to make the final thing from subassemblies, or else it is just too
hard to deal with.
The same methodology is also preferred in AutoCAD, you use blocks in thata
case.

http://geocities.com//house1.pdf

Bob

 

Those are pretty trivial models compared to an actual building with all
the plumbing, wiring, HVAC, plaster, wallboard, tile, doors and
fittings, windows and fittings, gas lines, light fixtures, etc., etc.

Having started with SW back in 96 in the RV industry, it would have been
hard doing those "houses" with SW even now although some do it.

The precast industry uses multibodies in a single part to represent the
rebar. It violates the intersecting body rule, but the effect is small
enough to be ignored.

If I was doing the buildings you showed, I would make the windows very
simple with the most attention to interface dimensions. If I was doing a
stick frame house I would model the studs and then have them precut
and delivered on site. Then I would carry a baseball bat around the
jobsite until the carpenters learned to read the prints and part numbers
and put the proper pieces where they belonged. In other words, probably
not practical.

I suppose it would be cool to have SW models direct a roll forming
machine to form, punch and mark steel studs so that the electrician and
plumber would feed pre-cut pipe and wire through marked holes.

TOP

TOP

 

This is what I am interested in really doing. It is electromechanical in
nature.

http://geocities.com//humidifierdehumidifier.pdf

Bob

 

Well, any kind of conversion is pretty much waste of time because
ArchiCAD has really poor import capabilities for 3D-stuff. I have to
use Rhinoceros to save SW-file as 3D-dwg and open then that in
ArchiCAD, but 3D-dwg...well, very slow. So, we have a subcontractor
who creates GDL-objects for us and they are extremely cool.

br
Markku

 

Have you ever seen ArchiCAD or similar? It really another world.

br
Markku

 

All that article does is underline the application of SW to mechanical
projects, including the steel parts of buildings!