My Rant
Paul Bowers
bunch of questions.
What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
replaced by all-knowing software?
Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
computer?
Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
in the shop?
Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
Paul
WILLIAM J DESHAWN
Yes, you are getting old, but that's irrelevant. Your concerns are valid,
but perhaps overdramatized. Nothing beats experience. As much CAD
experience as I have, I'm still only a beginner in Architecture. I bring an
interesting array of CAD skills to the architectural team with AutoLISP and
menu customization. Layer management was a bit of a challenge with the
XREFs, and Muti-viewport layouts. Thanks to some bright people in Autodesk
and a lot of bright developers who fought to keep AutoLISP, layer management
is a do-able thing.
What I'm trying to say I guess is: Let the experience come naturally. But
don't knock education. If someone gets CAD before they get Structural
drafting, they have a better tool to work with than you did in the
beginning. Where your board drafting experience will come in handy is
emergency drafting during brown-outs with a Coleman lantern. Don't say it
can never happen. You never know. Give everyone credit for the skill they
have and make the most of their skills as well as your own. Stop treating
people like they are all clones. We do not all have the same skill sets, we
don't all process thought in the same way, and we all have different levels
of memory retention. My own production for example is not as good as the
architects. Not even as good as an experienced technician. But my
programming skills raise the production level of every member of the
architectural team. If a team member has good CAD skills and is
inexperienced in your discipline, a good work ethic will gain him the
experience he needs eventually. If he has the knowledge of the "innermost
workings" of the CAD program, then at least somebody in your company does.
You will probably be asking him how you can do this and that. In the mean
time, have him do red-line pickup until he's understands the discipline
better. It's so hard to find everything you need in one person. And then
when you find him, you find that he doesn't need you as much as you need
him. Points to ponder, eh?
On a point you made: Yes, I think apprenticeship is a good thing.
On tradition instruments: Some training should be required, however the
tool they will be using is the computer. They should not need the degree of
proficiency with "traditional" tools that you did. The board will never
die, but it is not likely to be what it was before.
--
Bill DeShawn
bdes...@prodigy.net
bi...@starpanel.com
http://pages.prodigy.net/bdeshawn/bdeshawn.htm
______________________
Paul Bowers wrote in message <385AF994...@PipingDesign.com>...
Dennis Shinn
<pbo...@PipingDesign.com> wrote:
>I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
>bunch of questions.
And great questions at that!
>
>What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
>replaced by all-knowing software?
When we reach a point where all design decisions are being made by a
non-thinking machine we're in for trouble. Our built environment is
blessed with the riches (or poverty in some cases) contributed by a
wealth of diversity known as mankind. That diversity stems from the
individuality we all posess.
The fact remains, none the less, that there will be no real world
manifestation of design unless or until the concept is communicated to
those who will affect this manifestation.
>
>Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
>CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
>release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
That's a good observation. Although I would prefer to think that at
some point the pendulum will begin to swing in the other direction
when the tools become as common place and "transparent" to the users
as pencils and paper have been for so long. At that point perhaps we
can once again focus on the more important task of design and
communication.
The difference I think will make the biggest impact is when the paper
is eliminated almost entirely. I doubt if it will happen in my life
time or in that of most of us here. But consider the moevement in
other industries (mechanical for instance) where design goes from one
machine to another with no paper in between. It will take a quantum
leap in technological developments to see this implemented to a large
degree in the AEC industry but I think you'd agree that it's possible,
Paul.
>Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
>instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
>computer?
To their credit, ITT incorporates manual drafting in their drafting
program. At least they did up until last year when I had any contact
with them here in our area. Students were required to spend what I
recall about half their academic time "on the boards". How well they
were taught I can't say - I had had some conversations with the
director of the department at their facilities here in the Seattle
area.
>Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
>in the shop?
I would agree that would help no matter what field they're in. Just to
get a good feeling for what kind of information the field people need
and how it should be conveyed or presented.
>Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
I usually curl up with a good Bordeaux at such times.
Marshall Caudle
<pbo...@PipingDesign.com> wrote:
>What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
>replaced by all-knowing software?
Let's hope not. All pendulums swing in both directions. Actually
software doesn't know anything except what the programmer tells it -
so if the software is doing the "design" it is only creating the
design envisioned by its creator - the programmer.
>Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
>CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
>release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
For the present anyway!
>Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
>instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
>computer?
Don't know the answer to that but I do know that it is easier to train
a draftsman to be a CAD operator than it is to train a CAD operator to
be a draftsman.
>Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
>in the shop?
I've always advocated this. I see so many young architects that have
no concept of how a building fits together. They can design like
crazy, probably much better than I ever could or will. Only problem
is that what they design can't be constructed. I guess there is a
place for both, the trick is knowing where design stops and the
practicality begins. Paul Rudolph (whom I've never met but for whom I
have great respect as an archtiect) designed a building here in NC for
Burroughs Welcome that as far as design goes, is absolutely
incredible. The spatial concept boggles the mind - mine anyway. How
anyone could envision such a relationship between space is a gift. I
later had the opportunity to work on antoher project with the
architect in his office who put it all together into something
buildable. I remember him telling me one time during a tour of the
building that Paul really had no idea how to build it - only design
it. I had a professor in college who worked for Louis Kahn and he
said the same thing about him. IMHO unfortunately, so many of our
schools and professionals as well emphasize only design and those few
truly gifted designers are few and far between. Most of us have to
work in the quarries of life and deal with real problems.
I've tried working with large firms but all I end up doing is solving
problems created by some designer who doesn't understand buildings. I
personally thing designers should have to follow their creations all
the way through the process to final construction. When I design
something myself, I don't encounter those problems because my approach
is from a point of construction - design is made to fit construction.
Granted what I do will never will "design awards" from my peers, but
the buildings are well constructed, solve the needs of the client and
are not additional visual polution upon the landscape.
>Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
No! You're just seeing a profession you love and respect going
through some drastic changes. I think all of us who have been around
a design profession (be it architectural or product design) for twenty
or thirty years feel for the future of the profession that has
provided our livelihood.
Semper Fi
Marshall
Jim Patrick
>..What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>description of a buildable thing)?
The future of design is NOT always going to be "conveying the graphical
description" of a buildable thing. The PCB software can and does go
directly from wiring connections to Gerber (etch and drill) files. The 3D
modelers (Catia, ProE, S'Works, S'Edge etc) "go" directly from designed
parts to machine code or STL. printers.
I think you are ignoring the advances in "buildable". Few milling machines
are manual anymore; laser-cutters are common, and CNCs with direct G-Code
input are becoming a standard. You can't "show" a blueprint to these
devices, they need computer code.
>....Has the concept of "designer" been replaced by all-knowing software?
No. But many of the chores that many people called designers did are going
to go away. Chores like: "what fastener do I need here" and "..is this
beam big enough.." are becoming built into the software. They should be,
as they are simple physical problems solved by rote math.
It all boils down to form and force. The form may have minimum standards
-- headroom -- but is subjective. We CAN all live in 8'X8'X8' steel boxes,
but most people don't want to. So the designer designs living spaces that
people WANT to live in. The force the space has to withstand is simply
rote lookup and calculation. That part of "designer" is going to go away.
>Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
>CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
>release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
Is it any better than "churning out legions of (insert paper standard here)
paper-capable technicians that know the mech/arch drafting standards inside
and out; but are clueless to what (see your "buildable thing" above) the
drawing represents?
>Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
"Anyone who is 70 and not crotchety hasn't been paying attention."
paraphrase - Jeff Cooper
Jim Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian D
I think it would be a great idea for CAD operators to serve an
apprenticeship in their field.
This apprenticeship should be administrated at a national level so that an
apprentice could receive a recognized certificate in say "Tool and Die
Design" that would be recognized across the country, if not throughout the
world.
School experience and work experience should be combined and tested against
recognized standards. Graduate designers would gain recognition and good
incomes from this. Industry would benefit from more productive and skilled
employees.
But aw I'm just dreaming - can you tell me where to get some of that "all
knowing" software so I can let it loose while I sit and watch TV
Paul Bowers <pbo...@PipingDesign.com> wrote in message
news:385AF994...@PipingDesign.com...
> I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
> bunch of questions.
>
> What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
> description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
> replaced by all-knowing software?
>
> Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
> CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
> release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
>
> Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
> instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
> computer?
>
> Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
> in the shop?
>
> Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
>
> Paul
R. Wink
> I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
> bunch of questions.
>
> What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
> description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
> replaced by all-knowing software?
>
> Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
> CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
> release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
>
> Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
> instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
> computer?
>
> Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
> in the shop?
>
> Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
>
> Paul
Just so you know, I don't normally reply to any of these rants but in your
case...........
I've been in custom process equipment design and manufacture for 35 years,
going from a floor sweeper to running my own company. During that time I,
like you, have seen a decrease in the technical ability of the "incoming"
designers. Most companies now will not hire a person to do design without
a college degree in engineering. Yet most of these people can't even
start or organize a project, they don't have the practical experience.
All they seem capable of doing is to regurgitate what they were taught in
college (by professors who can't make it in the real world.) I've hired
enough professors in summer jobs that I no longer bother with them, they
don't have the ability to do anything but drafting, laying down someone
else's designs (an old saying - those that can, do; those that can't,
teach)
Asked to "invent" anything, which is the design process, a very very
limited few have a clue to the process of invention. All of the "cad"
operators I have seen in my area are capable of doing is to take someone
else's idea and turn it into a drawing which will be passed to the
fabrication shop..and sometimes it's even correct. Most of the time, the
"cad" operators have no or little experience in the process of making what
they're drawing. The fab. shop can't make the part as drawn, they have to
make some modification for the process.
Us old timers, the guys that came up the "old" way, are going by the
wayside and all the knowledge we have is going with us. One day, in the
not to distant future, the manufacturing companies will "discover" some
old guy puttering around that will actually come in and improve their
process by inventing something that's better than what they have. When
that day comes, they'll be a demand for us but we'll be gone. They'll
have to start over and will spend years getting back to where they were in
the '60's & '70's-with people that can do something rather than just
shuffle paper.
All of us old guys will be out to pasture and we'll be a great demand for
our talents. We'll have a good retirement teaching some of our knowledge
to the young ones.
Great thought isn't it. I doubt if it'll happen. The young one don't
know they don't know. They'll just continue down the same path, blindly
wiping out the company's knowledge base BUT cutting costs and saving the
company money because they managed to get rid of this old guy that was
getting paid too much money. They don't know until he's gone that this
old guy knew how all this stuff worked and kept it running. The company
just let a portion of their profit walk out the door. So the managers cut
some more, loosing more and more talent.
But back to the subject. You have the wrong idea about tech schools.
Tech schools are in the business of making money. they could give a shi_
less wither or not the students are capable. They've got their money.
They're churning out money, not students. The fact that you need someone
to do something constructive is not part of they're responsibility.
They're responsibility is to make money. Oh, some of the students
actually learn something but it's by they're own desire, not the schools.
Those are the one I'm trying to find. The school also fill the student's
head with the idea that after graduation, they're worth more that a
teacher, a policeman or fireman. Just because they can run a tube and
make lines appear on it, they're worth more that a guy that's out fighting
to your life. Sure they are!!
Sorry about this being so long but you've touched a nerve that I rant
about to anyone who'll listen
R. Wink
Luther W. Early
>I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
>bunch of questions.
>
>What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
>replaced by all-knowing software?
>
>Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
>CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
>release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
>
>Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
>instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
>computer?
>
>Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
>in the shop?
>
>Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
>
>Paul
Hi Paul,
I remember starting to work in a die repair shop and hearing the old Toolmakers telling me that
anyone can make a good part on a new machine but it takes a real toolmaker to make a good part on an
old machine. The old Bridgeport milling machines had about .075" backlash. A CNC has viturally
none! <g> That was app 1972. I now feel the same basic way about CAD design and am hoping it is
not just my age.
The problem today is really simple. Make the most money for the least possible investment and as
quick as possible. The same people who dream up this stuff up are the ones who have given us things
like the Y2K bug, Antibiotic Resistant Viruses, Junk Bonds and so on.
When will it end? Probably when it's too late. Me thinks the depression of the 30's will be a
period of great wealth compared to what must come. It is *absolutely impossible* for growth to
continue the way *some* people want it to. Just remember, when someone get's richer, someone else
looses! When Foreign sales exceeds sales in the USA, look out!
Cheers,
Lu
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------
; When all else fails, read the book. But there ain't none no more! <g>
; CAD-Tek web site: http://www.cad-tek.com
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Shinn
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 22:03:49 -0500, Paul Bowers wrote:
>
>>..What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>>description of a buildable thing)?
>
>The future of design is NOT always going to be "conveying the graphical
>description" of a buildable thing.
I would like to agree with you, Jim. I perceive a point in time when
designers will issue not a "graphical description", which I interpret
as a set of traditional printed documents, but rather the CAD database
will become the medium from which the data is extracted for use by the
builder or builders. But several things have to happen before we see
that come to pass.
First, we as drafters, designers, technicians or whatever we're
called, we, the ones that create the database that defines the
concept, must devote the time and effort necessary to preparation of
the object model. I don't suggest it *must* be a 3D model but I
suspect it will eventually come to that if everything else falls into
place.
Second, the receiving parties must either become CAD literate or the
industry will need to develop tools for accessing the digital database
that precludes the use of CAD on the part of the recipients. I
*don't*, however, forsee a complete abandonment of some form of
interaction on the part of all parties and the information in the
design database. Yes, it's possible and it's even being done in some
parts of the building industry - automated pipe fabrication for
plumbing and HVAC work; automatic fabrication of sheetmetal by dumping
the data to the plazma cutter... That sort of stuff, yes. For much of
the other work, though, it will be some time before there are machines
that can totally replace carpenters. But what will be replaced, or
what I would like to see replaced, is the intermediate step of
producing drawings from the electronic file that serve as the basis
for the contract. In *my* perfect world, the CAD data file itself
would serve as the sole repository of project data.
I can envision a scenario where the crew chief or foreman has direct
access to the drawings and can produce, either on the display or spit
it out to a printer or plotter the information she needs. I know I as
an architect find myself in the position of having to second guess the
field personell as to just where a section should be cut to be of most
use or where to pull details out of the drawing. The fact that I do
virtually all my work in 3D now makes it conveniently easy to produce
such sections and/or details at will, but I'm still not always able to
anticipate how the field crew will approach the project. That in
itself is a major factor in how drawings can or should be organized.
So as I say, I don't disagree in the least; I just see it moving in a
different direction. Rather a machine/machine interface situation I
dream of a point in time when I can merely issue my CAD file and
dispense with plotted drawings altogether.
Paul Bowers
> >..What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
> >description of a buildable thing)?
>
> The future of design is NOT always going to be "conveying the graphical
> description" of a buildable thing. The PCB software can and does go
> directly from wiring connections to Gerber (etch and drill) files. The 3D
> modelers (Catia, ProE, S'Works, S'Edge etc) "go" directly from designed
> parts to machine code or STL. printers.
Point taken for fields in which "building the thing" can be done by
machines. I work in piping design, where that's not currently
possible.
Paul
___________________________________________________
Web-Based Resource for Process Piping Professionals
Mailing List: <http://www.onelist.com/community/PipingDesign>
Webpage: <http://www.PipingDesign.com>
Jim Patrick
>Point taken for fields in which "building the thing" can be done by
>machines. I work in piping design, where that's not currently
>possible.
.....yet !!!
Hypothetical only of course, further complicated by my lack of knowledge
about piping in general, but let's try this for an exercise in automation:
A building is designed and you have to design the water piping:
Using Autocad you lay out the water supply. The number of fixtures and use
probability will drive the mains and feeder branch sizes and -- to some
extent -- suggest he routing. You define all non-standard pieces, and use
standard joints and connectors. Each part can have an "attribute" of base
part, cut length, threads, LOCATION and ORIENTATION of the finished part.
The exported "attributes" can be sent to a pipe supplier with
(hypothetical) automated machines. Everything can be made off-site and
some parts pre-assembled. When delivered it can be installed by unskilled
labor since the orientation and location are pre-marked on each piece.
Most probably not a great saving, since Autocad probably won't/can't
automatically insert standard joints and connections. But as the software
becomes 'smarter' the savings can be realized when the piping is
pre-assembled into prefab walls and sections.
I have done gasline layouts (manually) and worked a couple of demos --
expensive now -- for gas piping that by defining the demand amount and
location; the software drove the pipe sizes and suggested layouts. I
talked to the developers and they still have a long way to go, but it's
going.
I'm not implying that there will be no need for people, skilled or
otherwise. Even with CNCs someone needs to move the material and do
"reality checks". But there will be a reduction in time of design AND the
time spent working on the material.
Paul Bowers
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:59:30 -0500, Paul Bowers wrote:
>
> >Point taken for fields in which "building the thing" can be done by
> >machines. I work in piping design, where that's not currently
> >possible.
>
> .....yet !!!
>
> Hypothetical only of course, further complicated by my lack of knowledge
> about piping in general, but let's try this for an exercise in automation:
> A building is designed and you have to design the water piping:
>
> Using Autocad you lay out the water supply. The number of fixtures and use
> probability will drive the mains and feeder branch sizes and -- to some
> extent -- suggest he routing. You define all non-standard pieces, and use
> standard joints and connectors. Each part can have an "attribute" of base
> part, cut length, threads, LOCATION and ORIENTATION of the finished part.
That's pretty much what AutoPLANT (and other, more expensive software)
does, but configuring it to work properly has to be VERY carefully
done and maintained. If it's not done properly, you might as well go
back to the board'n'brains method.
> The exported "attributes" can be sent to a pipe supplier with
> (hypothetical) automated machines. Everything can be made off-site and
> some parts pre-assembled. When delivered it can be installed by unskilled
> labor since the orientation and location are pre-marked on each piece.
Those machines would still be limited to feasible transportation size,
unless they were on-site (which kind of negates the "factory-built"
advantage of cost reduction/quality control to a certain extent).
"Unskilled labour" in this context wouldn't work unless all the pipe
spools were to be bolted together (even then there would be a
problem...) instead of welded. Most piping systems are welded, for
obvious reasons- I'm referring to MAJOR piping here, as in refineries,
chemical plants, etc., multiple-pass pipe buttwelds that can take more
than one shift of construction teams to complete.
The legendary 36" diameter, all welded piping system fabrication is
not typical of what is done on a day-to-day basis, but everything
tends to be focused around it, after the major equipment is fixed, of
course. You don't move a 36" main feed line to accomodate a 2"
condensate return.
Good discussion!
Paul
___________________________________________________
There are no rules around here! We are trying to accomplish something.
-Thomas Edison
Culprandy
>Us old timers, the guys that came up the "old" way, are going by the
>wayside and all the knowledge we have is going with us.
I was trying to stay out of this one, but this note struck a nerve. Not you,
but some "old timers" I've worked with seem to think that their experience is
ALL they need. They don't need to learn this fancy CAD stuff, we're always
gonna need their experience. Then they're suprised when the pink slip shows up
in the pay packet.
If you're in the engineering business, which would you prefer:
A 35yr., very experienced designer with no CAD skills, nor desire to get any @
$45/hr
(2) 15yr designers with good experience, good CAD skills @ $25/hr.
We have a couple of old timers in our office who "will be glad when this CAD
fad is over and we can get back to real drafting."
just me,
Randy
Jim Patrick
>The legendary 36" diameter, all welded piping system fabrication is
>not typical of what is done on a day-to-day basis, but everything
>tends to be focused around it, after the major equipment is fixed, of
>course. You don't move a 36" main feed line to accomodate a 2"
>condensate return.
Although far from my "water pipe" example, it's still valid. Previously
36" pipe was designed by people who had arrived at the 36" number by
determining flow rates, frictional losses and viscosity. Then they had to
calculate the thickness of the metal and the type of welds allowed; based
on internal pressure, tolerance stackup, external force, etc. Then the
supplier had to calculate the metal needed to roll the pipe -- a "bend
allowance" of sorts.
Now there is software that can calculate what diameter of pipe and what
thickness is needed for a 30 foot span of pipe carrying 200 psi of gas at
-50F degrees. In seconds. That's a "heap of work" saved. Other software
can perform the cutting and forming calculations for the metal sheet,
saving time and getting a more consistent product. Other (computer aided)
technology like laser or plasma cutters, laser "tape rules", add to the
accuracy and time savings.
I was responding to your initial question about "the future of design" and
"all knowing software". Software that "designs by itself" has -- so far
-- proven a failure. Where software really shines is in calculation and
lookups, which has been traditionally relegated to the designer. Stress
analysis, gas/liqid/thermal flow, etc are starting to creep toward
"mainstream" design software. "Simple" calculation like inertial
characteristics and lookups are almost mainstream now.
None of this eliminates the need for a human 'reality check', people who
understand that 0.06" aluminum is NOT the answer to the above example.
(I've worked with people who would rather believe the software if that's
what it gave ! ) I think it will make less fewer "middleman" jobs that
some CAD operators are now employed as. What I see in the USA -- in a
period of prosperity -- is that no jobs are "lost"; but that jobs are
retained and productivity increases.
Cam Jackson
> Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
> CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
> release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
Paul.........The way I see it is the tools have become too complicated for
the job. They do all sorts of wonderful things, but mostly require quite
some effort and time to become proficient with. This has taken some of the
learning emphasis away from the basic 'trade' skills and applied it to the
tool.
I'm talking from experience here, having mastered a host of computer
software including two cad programs and from the look of it, another one
shortly. This time and effort has been at my expense as I don't believe I've
benefited personally (other than enjoying work), from any of the extra
productivity. Maybe the fact that I'm still employable is a benefit. :-)
>
> Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
> instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
> computer?
No. I think the drawing board is dead. Give them some SIMPLE cad
software and teach them the basics in draughting with that. (I can make a
suggestion) <tongue in cheek>
>
> Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
> in the shop?
YES YES YES YES YES YES
Cam Jackson
> We have a couple of old timers in our office who "will be glad when this
CAD
> fad is over and we can get back to real drafting."
>
I'm surprised to hear this Randy. You'd think they'd be keen learn and get
on the 'band wagon', even if it's just to tidy up their desks a bit. If they
just do designing, does that mean someone else has to draw up their work?
How come they're still employed?
Andy
My training is in Landscape Architecture. But it seem to apply.
>What is the future of "design"Has the concept of "designer" been
>replaced by all-knowing software?
Whatever helps. Good software helps you design. It does the stuff you
really shouldn't be wasteing your time on. If frees you to do the
creative work. It does the repetitive, mundane, grunt work. It helps
you catch mistakes. It also allows you to do things that were not
possible without it. So long as you don't allow it to limit your
choices.
>
>Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
>CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
>release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
>Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
>in the shop?
The better schools have co-op programs. And a 2 year appenticship
before you get your lisence. I think it's a good system. Of course new
people out of school are short of field experience. Just like I was.
They have valuable new skills and new ideas and little clue of the
real world. The co-op system can be valuable for both parties. The
student gets a dose of the real world, and the business gets a leg up
on the competition on getting the best students when they graduate.
If you get the students into the real world for a while, they will
figure out what is important and make the necessary "adjustments" at
school.
>
>Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
>instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
>computer?
How valuable is a student that knows how to use the slide rule? I
spent years learning to hand letter drawings. No longer a marketable
skill. In a few years the "traditional instrument" may be the Pentium
running Autocad.
Tech schools will teach whatever business people tell them to. They
will teach what gets the kids jobs. But if you want a particular
skill, they probably will have to stop teaching something else. They
don't have much time.
My opinion, but I'm only 50.
Jerry Walter
>
> I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
> bunch of questions.
>
> replaced by all-knowing software?
>
I hope this is not the case. I think we get caught up in the 'allure'
that the next release of the software is somehow going to make us better
at our jobs. An engineer I know, has, what I consider the best
assessment in what makes a person good at what they do. He would say it
takes aptitude and attitude, and only both of them together truly
qualifies a person to excel in the task at hand. We must remember that
the software is the 'tool' in the designer's hands, just like the slide
rule, calculator, and the printing press. If we look back at the last
200 years, do we really think that the advent of the CAD program on a
steel/silicone device will make the analogs of the worlds most important
inventions ? Not at the current state.
As a engineer by schooling, I know first hand, how the tried and true
practices of the past are still the basic building blocks of all
engineering design. Expecting a computer to be handed the torch to carry
this into the next century and beyond is not reasonable at this time. I
do believe that what CAD has afforded us to do, is give someone that
does not have a vast amount of experience in a particular field, the
ability to more easily experiment with design options (and thus fail
more often) than we gave someone in the past. This also allows someone
without the experience, to also become relatively careless with their
work, or take to long to reach a particular final design.
> Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
> CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
> release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
>
I have always thought it better to expose someone experienced in a
particular field, to the tools, then to expose someone proficient with a
particular tool, to the field.
> Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
> instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
> computer?
>
Sorry to say, but the basic building blocks to drafting, either by cad
or the board, can and are taught in high school. What happens after that
is building upon this foundation, in a particular field of business
(machines, highways, buildings, etc.).
> Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
> in the shop?
>
YES !
> Maybe I'm just getting old and crotchetty...
>
> Paul
No, you are seeing the wealth of knowledge, that the previous generation
has acquired, being tossed aside.
--
My opinions !
Jerry Walter
Culprandy
We still use 'em to check design drawings and run jobs. (don't laff)
>How come they're still employed?
Beats me, of course the company owner feels the same way and that might have a
little to do with it.
just me,
Randy
Randall Wink
Culprandy wrote:
> >
> >Us old timers, the guys that came up the "old" way, are going by the
> >wayside and all the knowledge we have is going with us.
>
> I was trying to stay out of this one, but this note struck a nerve. Not you,
> but some "old timers" I've worked with seem to think that their experience is
> ALL they need. They don't need to learn this fancy CAD stuff, we're always
> gonna need their experience. Then they're suprised when the pink slip shows up
> in the pay packet.
>
> If you're in the engineering business, which would you prefer:
> A 35yr., very experienced designer with no CAD skills, nor desire to get any @
> $45/hr
> (2) 15yr designers with good experience, good CAD skills @ $25/hr.
>
> We have a couple of old timers in our office who "will be glad when this CAD
> fad is over and we can get back to real drafting."
>
> just me,
> Randy
I agree with you. I've been looking for and NOT finding the 15 yr designers. I've
only been able to find "kids" fresh from school wanting "at least" $10.00/hr to
start. Old timers, if they're any good, have a safe and secure future and don't
generally leave a "good" shop.
R. Wink
jo...@fel.u-net.com
wrote:
(snip)
>............................................................................. The young one don't
>know they don't know. They'll just continue down the same path, blindly
>wiping out the company's knowledge base BUT cutting costs and saving the
>company money because they managed to get rid of this old guy that was
>getting paid too much money. They don't know until he's gone that this
>old guy knew how all this stuff worked and kept it running. The company
>just let a portion of their profit walk out the door. So the managers cut
Hear, hear.
(snip)
>But back to the subject. You have the wrong idea about tech schools.
>Tech schools are in the business of making money. they could give a shi_
>less wither or not the students are capable. They've got their money.
>They're churning out money, not students. The fact that you need someone
>to do something constructive is not part of they're responsibility.
>They're responsibility is to make money. Oh, some of the students
>actually learn something but it's by they're own desire, not the schools.
>Those are the one I'm trying to find. The school also fill the student's
>head with the idea that after graduation, they're worth more that a
>teacher, a policeman or fireman. Just because they can run a tube and
>make lines appear on it, they're worth more that a guy that's out fighting
>to your life. Sure they are!!
And again.
BTW, colleges are no longer involved in "teaching", they are part of
the "learning" industry. Note the change of emphasis.
John
Luther W. Early
>Paul Bowers wrote:
>>
>> I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
>> bunch of questions.
>>
>> What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>> description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
>> replaced by all-knowing software?
>>
> I hope this is not the case. I think we get caught up in the 'allure'
>that the next release of the software is somehow going to make us better
>at our jobs. An engineer I know, has, what I consider the best
[snip...]
"the 'allure that the next release"
While this may have been true 5 or so years ago, is it still true? That is, is it "allure" or have
we come to expect it? (like it or not)
In the beginning, there was AutoCAD 1.1. <g> Since computers were new, it took a while to develop.
The art af designing has been around since the "Missing Link" so let's say it is fairly well
established. Now, design what? Arch, Mech, HVAC, Landscape.... they are all different.
What we have is the "ShopSmith Syndrome". What's that? A multi-function tool, great in your
basement but not too time efficient for business. You and I see the computer as a tool. The big
boys see nothing but a *major* money making scheme. Next time they say they want to help you, try
and get help for their product without having your credit card charged $100 or more. That's also in
addition to the price you payed for the original software and all the updates.
The amount of computer hardware that has become obsolete in the last 10 years is disgraceful. When
a tool changes that much, it is not too useful is it? It's kina like putting a rubber magnet in
your shoe to kill foot pain! <g>
When I worked as a CAD Manager, app 3 of 20 people *really* understood AutoCAD and the computer they
were using. That was r12 Dos. The complexity of r2k running in win2k is a joke! It ain't a tool,
it's a Job!
Just ask yourself how much time you spend manipulating the computer vs. concentrating on the design
job. Then decide if the current state of the art CAD is advancing your design ability.
>
>Jerry Walter
Dennis Shinn
<Jerry....@Bentley.com> wrote:
> As a engineer by schooling, I know first hand, how the tried and true
>practices of the past are still the basic building blocks of all
>engineering design. Expecting a computer to be handed the torch to carry
>this into the next century and beyond is not reasonable at this time. I
>do believe that what CAD has afforded us to do, is give someone that
>does not have a vast amount of experience in a particular field, the
>ability to more easily experiment with design options (and thus fail
>more often) than we gave someone in the past. This also allows someone
>without the experience, to also become relatively careless with their
>work, or take to long to reach a particular final design.
The following was printed in Engineering News Report or something
similar. I read it literally *years* ago but it seems relavent to the
discussion.
In an experiment, a group of graduate engineering students was
provided calculators with which to figure answers to an exam. The
calculators were purposefully programmed to produce erroneous answers
to calculations. Not just insignificant decimal errors but an order of
magnitude that would alert anyone with an intuitive "feel" for member
design, columns and beams, for example, would have questioned these
results immediately.
The overwhelming majority of these students elected to accept the
answers from the calculators.
What this illustrates more than anything is a growing wilingness to
"turn over" the decision making process to machines. Whereas machines
can and do break. And therein lies the biggest danger in what we seem
to agree is the loss of experience in all the fields being discussed
here.
Consider a situation where an architectural add-on is designed to
maintain relationshhips between elements in a design. A window is
place in the middle of a wall. At some point the wall becomes longer.
Does the window maintain a midpoint relationship or is there more
important considerations such as view or composition of the interior
space? Are we ready to let software make these decisions for us?
Cam Jackson
> Just ask yourself how much time you spend manipulating the computer vs.
concentrating on the design
> job. Then decide if the current state of the art CAD is advancing your
design ability.
We said Lu......You're a man after my own heart.....
Tony Sandstrom
Culprandy wrote:
>
>
> If you're in the engineering business, which would you prefer:
> A 35yr., very experienced designer with no CAD skills, nor desire to get any @
> $45/hr
> (2) 15yr designers with good experience, good CAD skills @ $25/hr.
>
15 yr designers with good cad skills don't work for $25/hr unless they have a screw
loose.
The 35 yr designer is the better bet, team him up with some hot shot young cad
jockey at $15/hr,
the designer does the thinking, the cad jockey does the button pushing. If the
young hot shot is smart, he/she will learn while pushing buttons.
Best combo is 35 yr experience designer with good cad skills @ $60/hr.
Tony
LONGSHOT
with that experience?
Tony Sandstrom <san...@gat.com> wrote in message
news:385E59BD...@gat.com...
Reini Urban
>I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
>bunch of questions.
>
>What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
>description of a buildable thing)?
This changes every twenty years or so according cultural waves and
fashion.
Currently I see a backstrike of anti-postmodernism or so-called
"reflexive modernism", which means a more functional approach to design
again. But this might be wishful thinking.
The holland and french design school is still allmighty here in europe.
I cannot speak that much about american design schools, but my guess is
that is still not functional enough :)
(Who are your design gurus? Still Wright, Scarpa, and Botta and such?
Here it is more like Foster, Piano, De Corbusier and Koolhaas. More
dutch computer crap raising...)
>Has the concept of "designer" been replaced by all-knowing software?
This is a newsgroup for AutoCAD not for design or field experience.
So you will not find very much field experiences here which doesn't mean
that people prefer knowing software (just one of their many tools) more
than their primary field.
>Do tech schools insist on students learning to use the traditional
>instruments and become proficient with them before "graduating" to the
>computer?
why this? Computers are just a tool and people select the tools they
like most, if traditional or modern.
tech schools should teach the techniques which are needed in practice.
(which is both, but dependent on the particular field.)
>Should new grads be required to complete some sort of apprenticeship
>in the shop?
that is a question which cannot be answered generally. depends on the
school. (more tech or arts related)
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
Mike Warner
Reini Urban wrote in message <385e9221.24710591@judy>...
>This changes every twenty years or so according cultural waves and
>fashion.
>Currently I see a backstrike of anti-postmodernism or so-called
>"reflexive modernism", which means a more functional approach to design
>again. But this might be wishful thinking.
>The holland and french design school is still allmighty here in europe.
>I cannot speak that much about american design schools, but my guess is
>that is still not functional enough :)
>
I prefer negative positivism, but lean toward pre-reflective Arthurianism
with it's Camalotion pretensions.
>(Who are your design gurus? Still Wright, Scarpa, and Botta and such?
>Here it is more like Foster, Piano, De Corbusier and Koolhaas. More
>dutch computer crap raising...)
>
Reini, we're not all architects.
I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson ( from the English
school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
The guy that does the Pavlov's dog cartoon can be an inspiration as well -
he designs some real neat stuff.
Culprandy
>screw loose.
In our area thats the goin' rate for "direct" full-time.
>The 35 yr designer is the better bet, team him up with some hot shot young
>cad jockey at $15/hr, the designer does the thinking, the cad jockey does the
button >pushing. If the young hot shot is smart, he/she will learn while
pushing buttons.
Been there, done that, half as much production and the 35yr guy still knows
bupkus about CAD, and it takes 15yrs to get the cub up to real production.
>Best combo is 35 yr experience designer with good cad skills @ $60/hr.
Been there, am that, still less production at more cost. Savings are only
realised if the 35yrs controls the entire team.
just me,
Randy
Mike Warner
Tony Sandstrom wrote in message <385E59BD...@gat.com>...
>
>
>The 35 yr designer is the better bet, team him up with some hot shot young
cad
>jockey at $15/hr,
>the designer does the thinking, the cad jockey does the button pushing. If
the
>young hot shot is smart, he/she will learn while pushing buttons.
>
How would that work in practice?
35 yr designer,
"Hey Kid, I've got an idea on how to solve this problem. Are you ready to
start pushing some buttons?"
The Kid,
"OK shoot, which buttons?"
35 yr designer,
"Let's start with drawing a horizontal line"
The Kid,
"Ok, how long?"
35 yr designer,
"let's start with, oh, 6 inches"
The Kid,
"6 inches?"
The 35 yr desinger,
"Yea, roughly 6 inches"
The Kid,
"What do you mean, roughly 6 inches? This is a computer, we don't deal with
roughly's any more."
The 35 yr designer,
"I just want to scratch around a bit to see what it looks like, roughly"
The Kid,
"Stupid old fart, doesn't know what he wants"
A GOOD 35 yr designer,
"Move over kid, let me have a go at that."
"Hey, this isn't that difficult"
"What's the mystery?"
"Hey, I like it" - (like me, his name is Mikey)
Best bet - buy the 35 yr designer a computer and let him play.
Mike Warner.
Dennis Shinn
wrote:
>> If the >young hot shot is smart, he/she will learn while pushing buttons.
>>
>
>
>How would that work in practice?
It's probably more like
Old Fart grabs a roll of flimsy, sketches out the concept and hands it
over to the grasshopper to "turn into a drawing". Now the really
*good* Old Fart sketches out the concept on flimsy, grided note pad or
a used watermellon rind that's good enough to build from.
There can be two ways, maybe more, to look at the role of drawings.
One is to communication information to someone and the other is to
communicate information to someone. In the first instance you scratch
out an image, notes of explanation for things that may not be clear
with simple graphics and texture representation and some dimensions to
give it size. The tell the user to go build it. The other is you turn
over a database that contains all this information both in graphic and
*non* graphic format and the recipient is free to extract whatever she
needs to build the thing.
The medium is the message.
LONGSHOT
the "kids" that come to work here dont last a month because they are a pain
in the ass,,,, like your script,,,, making it easier and faster to push them
out of the way and do it yourself. if they cant work alone they will only
slow YOU down....
hire 10, you might find one with potential.
Andy
Don't forget new-traditional post modern. (looks old and doesn't work)
Cadman
Before he retired "old fart" used to be my boss, I still have
pencil marks on my screen from those sessions. My favorite line
was when he would tell me that those hex shaped holes needed to
be round. After trying to explain it to him many times I would
just do a regen when he would complain about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:Cad...@kc.net http://www.kc.net/~cadman/
"A still sea never wrought a skillful sailor"
Remove the NOSPAM in my email to reply direct
Cam Jackson
> I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson ( from the English
> school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
> The guy that does the Pavlov's dog cartoon can be an inspiration as well -
> he designs some real neat stuff.
>
ROTFLOL
My guru seems to be Murphy......(from the Irish school?)
Mike Warner
Your'e not taking this seriously.
Mike.
Cam Jackson wrote in message <83pllt$rcl$2...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
Mike Warner
What on Earth was the "old fart" thinking?
Remember when circles where round things and not polygons?
Just a compas - not a regen.
Ah progress - how many sides does a circlce have?
Several, according to the Cad experts.
Mike Warner.
Cadman wrote in message <385FEB8F...@kc.net>...
Marshall Caudle
The local newspaper had an article on newsgroup and email shortcuts
this past week. That one wasn't there. Does anyone know of a
shortcut dictionary stashed on the web someplace?
On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:52:22 +1200, "Cam Jackson" <ca...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
>> Reini, we're not all architects.
>> I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson ( from the English
>> school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
>> The guy that does the Pavlov's dog cartoon can be an inspiration as well -
>> he designs some real neat stuff.
>>
>
>
>
>ROTFLOL
>
>
>My guru seems to be Murphy......(from the Irish school?)
>
>
>
Semper Fi
Marshall
Dennis Shinn
wrote:
>Okay, I'm either dumb or uninformed. but what does ROTFLOL mean.
Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud. (g)
BTW (By The Way), (g) is short for (grin),....hehehe
Mike
find the forest.
The object of an engineering drawing is to convey information to the people
who are going to manufacture whatever it is the drawing is supposed to
represent. A drawing is not created to count custom made LISPs, the number
of erasures, the number of different text formats used.
Whether this information was created with a pencil or a computer is
irrelevant. The question is: Is the information contained in the drawing
sufficient to create the product, item, factory layout or building
requested?
I spend my days staring at my screen, moving and clicking my mouse. I used
to spend my days staring at my drawing board, moving my drafting machine and
sharpening my pencil. At a gut level I can't tell the difference. I still
have to make the marks - with or without LISPs, with or without eraser
shields - that are needed to transfer my ideas into a real thing.
We have all come across draftsman who has no idea what they are doing but
creates beautiful, but useless, prints. And we have come across designers
who can't be bothered making lines meet neatly at corners or text fit within
guide lines, but manage to create beautiful products.
What it is we do, or try to do, is convey information. Be it from
architects to masons, from marketing types to production, from artists to
toolmakers.
With all due respect to Dennis: The information, not the medium, is the
message.
It's also nice that AutoCAD can generate a plot almost as neat as the ones I
used to do by hand. <g>
Mike
It's not fake anything, it's real plastic
=============================
Mike Warner <mvwa...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:nVz74.40034$X47.1...@quark.idirect.com...
>
> Reini Urban wrote in message <385e9221.24710591@judy>...
>
> >This changes every twenty years or so according cultural waves and
> >fashion.
> >Currently I see a backstrike of anti-postmodernism or so-called
> >"reflexive modernism", which means a more functional approach to design
> >again. But this might be wishful thinking.
> >The holland and french design school is still allmighty here in europe.
> >I cannot speak that much about american design schools, but my guess is
> >that is still not functional enough :)
> >
>
>
> I prefer negative positivism, but lean toward pre-reflective Arthurianism
> with it's Camalotion pretensions.
>
>
> >(Who are your design gurus? Still Wright, Scarpa, and Botta and such?
> >Here it is more like Foster, Piano, De Corbusier and Koolhaas. More
> >dutch computer crap raising...)
> >
Dennis Shinn
>The object of an engineering drawing is to convey information to the people
>who are going to manufacture whatever it is the drawing is supposed to
>represent.
It's all in how you perceive the process of conveyance, Mike. In our
day, it was by visual means alone. You made a "picture" in one way or
the other to represent the information you needed to get across to the
next person in line in the process. Today, and more so in the future,
the picture is only one part, and perhaps a small part at that, of the
whole ... uh .... picture.
> A drawing is not created to count custom made LISPs, the number
>of erasures, the number of different text formats used.
My clients don't have much use for any of these things, no, but they
certainly have use for and make use of counts of block insertions that
represent connection hardware for the precast I detail. Thanks to
Michael Puckett for an outstanding block counting routine that
wrestles out information from deeply nested blocks I can tell in a
heartbeat how many of this or that type of angle, tube steel or
whatever I have. I've even been able to tell a tilt-up contractor how
many total inches of weld he has on the job. And how many yards of
concrete will be required for any given panel. Or how 'bout figuring
weight and CG for really odd shaped concrete items? Or even steel
fabrications?
>Whether this information was created with a pencil or a computer is
>irrelevant.
From a strictly visual point of view I wouldn't begin to argue the
point.
> Is the information contained in the drawing
>sufficient to create the product, item, factory layout or building
>requested?
Again, it depends on what you describe as "information". Is it just
what one sees when looking at the display or the print or does the
drawing database provide the wealth of information it can (and
should)?
>I spend my days staring at my screen, moving and clicking my mouse. I used
>to spend my days staring at my drawing board, moving my drafting machine and
>sharpening my pencil. At a gut level I can't tell the difference.
I mean no disrespect, Mike; I'm certain you're probably a CAD jock
than I am but ... I think you're missing a lot of the potential
available in the CAD technology. But then I realize there has to be a
market for it. And I'll admit it's taken me several years to open even
a few of my clients to the benefits of the up-front effort needed to
realize this potential. If the market's not there, then we don't have
much of an arguement.
>We have all come across draftsman who has no idea what they are doing but
>creates beautiful, but useless, prints.
Constantly! (grin)
>With all due respect to Dennis: The information, not the medium, is the
>message.
I think, or at least I hope that my comments above serve to clarify my
attitude RE: the "medium". I will be the first to agree that the most
stringent CAD standards, most meticulous tehcnique and highest quality
plots do nothing to enhance an otherwise meaningless set of lines and
dimensions that aren't well coordinated or have any relation to
reality. On the other hand, effort to embed non-graphic information
into the drawing database, link graphical objects to non-graphic
information either within the drawing or elsewhere pays off handsomely
down the road. That, Mike, is the medium about which I was speaking.
Culprandy
"product" is changing from the "picture" to the "data" and a picture. Its been
an interesting ride so far, but I'm curious about the next wave.
just me,
Randy
Dennis Shinn
wrote:
>Gee, Dennis, I was going to reply to Mike but you beat me to every punch.. Our
>"product" is changing from the "picture" to the "data" and a picture. Its been
>an interesting ride so far, but I'm curious about the next wave.
We have a long way to go before we realize what I think you and I
anticipate as the ultimate implemenation of this scenario, Randy. But
I've seen several examples. Some of the folks in our local user group,
HVAC mechanical types, are doing some really fascinating things with
custom routines and data extraction. Full bills of materials, data
sent directly to plasma cutters and such.
It's a fascinating time to be in this business.
One of the layout guys that works for a general contractor client of
mine, he and I have been utilizing 3D layout data extracted from a
drawing I create, saved to floppy and directly uploaded into his Total
Station EDM instrument. We still work with paper drawings just to
check that we're on the "same page" until we're confident we have the
bugs squashed but man, what a time saver. I send him the ascii data
file via file attachment to an email and never have to leave the
comfort of my home bar ... I mean office.
LONGSHOT
Mike <mtl...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:83rrtf$9...@chronicle.concentric.net...
> Hey boys and girls, I think we're getting lost in the trees because we
can't
> find the forest.
>
people
> who are going to manufacture whatever it is the drawing is supposed to
number
> of erasures, the number of different text formats used.
>
> sufficient to create the product, item, factory layout or building
> requested?
>
used
> to spend my days staring at my drawing board, moving my drafting machine
and
> sharpening my pencil. At a gut level I can't tell the difference. I
> have to make the marks - with or without LISPs, with or without eraser
> shields - that are needed to transfer my ideas into a real thing.
>
> who can't be bothered making lines meet neatly at corners or text fit
within
> guide lines, but manage to create beautiful products.
>
> What it is we do, or try to do, is convey information. Be it from
> architects to masons, from marketing types to production, from artists to
> toolmakers.
>
> message.
>
Reini Urban
>Reini Urban wrote in message <385e9221.24710591@judy>...
>
>>This changes every twenty years or so according cultural waves and
>>fashion.
>>Currently I see a backstrike of anti-postmodernism or so-called
>>"reflexive modernism", which means a more functional approach to design
>>again. But this might be wishful thinking.
>>The holland and french design school is still allmighty here in europe.
>>I cannot speak that much about american design schools, but my guess is
>>that is still not functional enough :)
>
>I prefer negative positivism, but lean toward pre-reflective Arthurianism
>with it's Camalotion pretensions.
my latest favorite sig goes like this:
Of course, postmodernism has taught us that there is no objective
reality and that we all forge our own interpretations, usually with long
words and often in French, about what reality we perceive. So I don't
want to color your interpretation. Except to say that it's wrong. :-)
-- Jon Orwant
One of my favorite dynamically created principal design reflectionism is
there: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/postmodern
This little program produces all the questions to answers to the
questions I never dared to ask. Someday I'll convert it t create answers
to questions I never thought of. Just to impress your favorite
postmodernistic or french-addicted friends.
>>(Who are your design gurus? Still Wright, Scarpa, and Botta and such?
>>Here it is more like Foster, Piano, De Corbusier and Koolhaas. More
>>dutch computer crap raising...)
>>
>Reini, we're not all architects.
>I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson (from the English
>school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
Never heard of them. Are there design schools for machines as well?
I thought machines are strictly functional and no designer should ever
get his dirty hands on them. (streamlining, "user-friendly", hip)
But I initially thought that of architecture and internet as well some
years ago...
Culprandy
>mine, he and I have been utilizing 3D layout data extracted from a
>drawing I create, saved to floppy and directly uploaded into his Total
>Station EDM instrument. We still work with paper drawings just to
>check that we're on the "same page" until we're confident we have the
>bugs squashed but man, what a time saver. I send him the ascii data
>file via file attachment to an email and never have to leave the
>comfort of my home bar ... I mean office.
>
Weve been "backloading" survay data to our Total Sta. for a couple of years.
It has saved "REAL" time in layout construction costs.
We're now working on extracting heat transfer data for different building
facades to do heat loss/gain calcs on major buildings.
Our civil guys are using some 3rd party stuff for flow calcs/recalcs/backcalcs
on surface drainage and storm sewer design. Running a line slope with a pencil
and calculator took hours, now we can do 5 or 6 "what-ifs" in just a few
minutes. I can hardly wait to see whats coming next.
just me,
Randy
Luther W. Early
>Hey boys and girls, I think we're getting lost in the trees because we can't
>find the forest.
Or maybe it who is leading us through the forest? Could it be Billie Gates?
>The object of an engineering drawing is to convey information to the people
>who are going to manufacture whatever it is the drawing is supposed to
>represent. A drawing is not created to count custom made LISPs, the number
>of erasures, the number of different text formats used.
>
>Whether this information was created with a pencil or a computer is
>irrelevant. The question is: Is the information contained in the drawing
>sufficient to create the product, item, factory layout or building
>requested?
A few years ago, someone invented a little chip called a microprocessor. Since this little chip can
be *programmed* to do many different things, a whole new family of products has evolved. One of
these products is a Personal Computer. Why "Personal" Computer, because it is cheap enough for you
and I to own one. But... why do I want to buy one? Here is where the fun starts! <g>
I will assume that the Personal Computer like the Splitting the Atom, was invented to serve the
general public. Well, it didn't take too long for marketing people to see a *real* gold mine.
Using smoke and mirrors, they have it serving *them* more so than us.
A computer without software is useless.
Software that is too specialized will not sell to the general public/in large quantities.
Who is deciding what hardware and software we need? Microsoft and the other software developers. I
don't give a *rat's ass* what they say, for the most part, it is *not* you and I! Why do I single
out Microsoft? Because they have a monopoly on the software industry with Windows. While Windows
has many nice features, it has some *real* problems too. Windows is *too* complicated to be both
reliable and inexpensive. That is why you now need to have IS people or skills. Any time that was
previously saved by switching to computer is now offset by IS expenses. (IS Information System
people, Windows gurus, etc.)
>I spend my days staring at my screen, moving and clicking my mouse. I used
Your statement is exactly how I feel about the "current state of the art" CAD. One must spend their
time manipulating the computer which leaves little time for concentrating on the design.
Based on using CAD design for a one of a kind mechanical design where 3d objects are not required,
there was a period when it was more efficient than the board.
In order to sell AutoCAD (or CAD in general) to the masses, it has become a complicated mix of many
different drafting styles. In general, it's just too complicated to be efficient and 1/2 of that is
due to Windows.
Those of use who started using CAD many years ago, may *type* a command rather than taking the time
to find it in a menu. I would hate to learn AutoCAD from scratch now! <g>
>to spend my days staring at my drawing board, moving my drafting machine and
>sharpening my pencil. At a gut level I can't tell the difference. I still
>have to make the marks - with or without LISPs, with or without eraser
>shields - that are needed to transfer my ideas into a real thing.
>
>We have all come across draftsman who has no idea what they are doing but
>creates beautiful, but useless, prints. And we have come across designers
>who can't be bothered making lines meet neatly at corners or text fit within
>guide lines, but manage to create beautiful products.
>
>What it is we do, or try to do, is convey information. Be it from
>architects to masons, from marketing types to production, from artists to
>toolmakers.
>
>With all due respect to Dennis: The information, not the medium, is the
>message.
>
>It's also nice that AutoCAD can generate a plot almost as neat as the ones I
>used to do by hand. <g>
>
>Mike
>
>It's not fake anything, it's real plastic
>=============================
>
>
>
>
>
>Mike Warner <mvwa...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>news:nVz74.40034$X47.1...@quark.idirect.com...
>>
>> Reini Urban wrote in message <385e9221.24710591@judy>...
>>
>> >This changes every twenty years or so according cultural waves and
>> >fashion.
>> >Currently I see a backstrike of anti-postmodernism or so-called
>> >"reflexive modernism", which means a more functional approach to design
>> >again. But this might be wishful thinking.
>> >The holland and french design school is still allmighty here in europe.
>> >I cannot speak that much about american design schools, but my guess is
>> >that is still not functional enough :)
>> >
>>
>>
>> I prefer negative positivism, but lean toward pre-reflective Arthurianism
>> with it's Camalotion pretensions.
>>
>>
>> >(Who are your design gurus? Still Wright, Scarpa, and Botta and such?
>> >Here it is more like Foster, Piano, De Corbusier and Koolhaas. More
>> >dutch computer crap raising...)
>> >
>> Reini, we're not all architects.
>> I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson ( from the English
>> school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
>> The guy that does the Pavlov's dog cartoon can be an inspiration as well -
>> he designs some real neat stuff.
>>
>>
>
>
Cheers,
Lu
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------
; When all else fails, read the book. But there ain't none no more! <g>
; CAD-Tek web site: http://www.cad-tek.com
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Culprandy
>Your statement is exactly how I feel about the "current state of the art"
>CAD. One must spend their time manipulating the computer which leaves
>little time for concentrating on the design.
If my guys don't concentrate on design they aren't around very long.
>Based on using CAD design for a one of a kind mechanical design where 3d
>objects are not required, there was a period when it was more efficient than
>the board.
Having used AutoCAD since mid-1984, that statement hasn't been true since
late-84.
>In order to sell AutoCAD (or CAD in general) to the masses, it has become a
>complicated mix of many different drafting styles.
AutoCAD has no "internal" style much less a mix of many. Each user must
determine his/her own standards (just like before) and adhere to them. Its
only complicated if you desire it to be so.
>In general, it's just too complicated to be efficient and 1/2 of that is
>due to Windows.
Long ago we outpaced manual drafting for efficency. WinDoze has hampered that
very little.
>Those of use who started using CAD many years ago, may *type* a command
>rather than taking the time to find it in a menu.
IF you don't customize AutoCAD to fit the way you work, you may very well have
difficulty being efficient. AutoCAD is just a tool.
>I would hate to learn AutoCAD from scratch now! <g>
As would I.
just me,
Randy
LONGSHOT
osnap commands i use, one is 12 common commands i use... like 3d surfaces &
layer controls , the other is custom lisps.... all other commands i have set
up with one or 2 letter aliases.... i type more than i search for menus....
seems to be alot quicker for me.... plus i cant stand having a zillion
toolbars open... takes up MY screenspace.... and no im not on a 14"
monitor... its 19" .
just another opinion....
Culprandy <culp...@aol.com1john3-1> wrote in message
news:19991223151349...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >>I spend my days staring at my screen, moving and clicking my mouse. I
used
> >Your statement is exactly how I feel about the "current state of the art"
> >CAD. One must spend their time manipulating the computer which leaves
> >little time for concentrating on the design.
>
> If my guys don't concentrate on design they aren't around very long.
>
>
> >Based on using CAD design for a one of a kind mechanical design where 3d
> >objects are not required, there was a period when it was more efficient
than
> >the board.
>
> Having used AutoCAD since mid-1984, that statement hasn't been true since
> late-84.
>
> >In order to sell AutoCAD (or CAD in general) to the masses, it has become
a
> >complicated mix of many different drafting styles.
>
> AutoCAD has no "internal" style much less a mix of many. Each user must
> determine his/her own standards (just like before) and adhere to them.
Its
> only complicated if you desire it to be so.
>
> >In general, it's just too complicated to be efficient and 1/2 of that is
> >due to Windows.
>
> Long ago we outpaced manual drafting for efficency. WinDoze has hampered
that
> very little.
>
> >Those of use who started using CAD many years ago, may *type* a command
> >rather than taking the time to find it in a menu.
>
> IF you don't customize AutoCAD to fit the way you work, you may very well
have
> difficulty being efficient. AutoCAD is just a tool.
>
> >I would hate to learn AutoCAD from scratch now! <g>
>
Jim Patrick
>Mike Warner wrote:
>>I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson (from the English
>>school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
>Never heard of them. Are there design schools for machines as well?
>I thought machines are strictly functional and no designer should ever
>get his dirty hands on them. (streamlining, "user-friendly", hip)
>But I initially thought that of architecture and internet as well some
>years ago...
Whoaah ! Never heard of Goldberg? Goldberg was a cartoonist who
"invented" machines to perform simple tasks. The machine were ingenious
and -- by design -- outrageous. Goldberg is a true icon.
Jim Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bowers
> >>I spend my days staring at my screen, moving and clicking my mouse. I used
> >Your statement is exactly how I feel about the "current state of the art"
> >CAD. One must spend their time manipulating the computer which leaves
> >little time for concentrating on the design.
> If my guys don't concentrate on design they aren't around very long.
Sorry if I don't recall from earlier messages, but are "your guys"
designers or drafters? I don't mean to harp on this, but a "designer"
should be the one who knows what should be presented visually (or by
ones and zeros in a digital file, depending on how the work is done)
as a description of the concept, based on design
criteria/standards/specs and input from engineers.
Paul
Mike
CAD over velum. As Dennis points out, there is much more information in a
CAD file than there is on a piece of velum. I was focusing, or trying to
focus, on the question of whether designers or computer jocks will dominate
the CAD field. Both are represented in CAD - Computer Aided Design - but
note that it is Computer AIDED Design not ComputerIZED Design. If the
processing power, "expert program", GUI, whatever appears that will allow
someone to enter their "want" into a computer and have it spit out drawings
and specs, we'll all be in trouble.
My point, obviously poorly made, is: it still takes a designer to design.
I could teach someone to use AutoCAD but that wouldn't make him a designer
any more than my learning to mix pigments on a palate would make me an
artist.
There is no question in my mind that CAD is a "better way" but it is still
just a means to an end. If you don't know how to reach that end, all the
computer skills in the world won't help you find it.
Mike
It's not fake anything, it's real plastic
=============================
Dennis Shinn <c...@anatechsys.com> wrote in message
news:38619ab4...@brokaw.wa.com...
Paul Bowers
> Whoaah ! Never heard of Goldberg? Goldberg was a cartoonist who
> "invented" machines to perform simple tasks. The machine were ingenious
> and -- by design -- outrageous. Goldberg is a true icon.
Hmmm...I wonder if "Rubik's Cube" was based on this concept (that of a
very complicated puzzle that when solved, offered nothing to the
solver other than the satisfaction of having obtained the predescribed
expectations)?
The problem with CAD software is that it forces users to conform to
the limited visions of software designers. Of course, this feature/bug
can be further enhanced/fixed by offering the user yet more choices.
Oh, boy, more ways to sharpen my writing utensil - if I can just
figger out how to make the damned, newfangled 64-bit graphite
obtusificator work!
For pure design and field work, give me a pencil and I'll download my
design sketches to someone who can efficiently put together a 3D model
to describe what I've surveyed or designed.
I think that "old fart" attitude of mine is showing through again, but
I do like CAD if applied properly.
Paul
Paul Bowers
> My point, obviously poorly made, is: it still takes a designer to design.
> I could teach someone to use AutoCAD but that wouldn't make him a designer
> any more than my learning to mix pigments on a palate would make me an
> artist.
> There is no question in my mind that CAD is a "better way" but it is still
> just a means to an end. If you don't know how to reach that end, all the
> computer skills in the world won't help you find it.
Unless I am mistaken, most of the people that read this newsgroup deal
with images in their daily jobs, not words. Whether the images are
invoked by Computer Assisted "D" (does that "D" signify "Design" or
"Drafting"?) or paper drawings is irrellevant.
The "D" in CAD has long been used by software manufacturers/vendors to
imply things that their software *simply cannot do*. Software cannot
design, period.
Maybe I'm ranting to the wrong group, but I can't find another one- is
there an "comp.cad.autocad.oldfart" place?
Paul
Ed Schuler
>
> > any more than my learning to mix pigments on a palate would make me an
> > artist.
I'm thinkin' you need to take a stroll over to a local art museum. If you could
learn to mix
pigments and then splooge some paint stuff onto canvases, then you'd at least be
on par
with these modern art folks. And, if you could make your splooges actually LOOK
like
a puppy or something.....
Ed
Mike Warner
corporate line - vis a vis the Acme Corporation.
I feel, deeply and with a certain amount of pity, that his "post-Acme"
period has tormented him and that he will never live up to his potential.
A crying shame.
Jim Patrick wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 23 Dec 1999 14:28:42 GMT, (Reini Urban) wrote:
>
>>Mike Warner wrote:
>>>I design machines and my guru's are Heath Robinson (from the English
>>>school) and Rube Goldberg.(?) (from the American school)
>
>>Never heard of them. Are there design schools for machines as well?
>>I thought machines are strictly functional and no designer should ever
>>get his dirty hands on them. (streamlining, "user-friendly", hip)
>>But I initially thought that of architecture and internet as well some
>>years ago...
>
>Whoaah ! Never heard of Goldberg? Goldberg was a cartoonist who
>"invented" machines to perform simple tasks. The machine were ingenious
>and -- by design -- outrageous. Goldberg is a true icon.
>
>
>
Mike Warner
Paul Bowers wrote in message <3862D291...@PipingDesign.com>...
>The "D" in CAD has long been used by software manufacturers/vendors to
>imply things that their software *simply cannot do*. Software cannot
>design, period.
>
Well said Paul.
>Maybe I'm ranting to the wrong group, but I can't find another one- is
>there an "comp.cad.autocad.oldfart" place?
>
Yeah, but then we wouldn't have anything to rant about.
Reminds me of a "Farside" cartoon.
It's the retired cartoonist's home. Two "old farts" are sitting on the front
porch and one has his arms outstreched, much like a fisherman, and says to
the other, "That's nothing, I once drew a character with a nose this long"
Mike Warner.
Mike Warner
Culprandy wrote in message <19991223151349...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>If my guys don't concentrate on design they aren't around very long.
>
"Your" guys? You sound like a treat to work with.
Do own the company, or are you merely a hired hand?
I'd get off that high horse before it's to late - before you start believing
that you are the next Napolian.
Many a good person has fallen into that trap.
Just me....... and my advice.
Mike Warner.
Mike Warner
Ed Schuler wrote in message <3862D721...@rose-hulman.edu>...
>> Mike said, in part:
>>
>> > any more than my learning to mix pigments on a palate would make me an
>> > artist.
>
Dennis Shinn
>With all due respect, I did not mean to imply that there is no advantage to
>CAD over velum.
I'll confess, I misread your post, Mike. I think we're on the same
page.
> If the
>processing power, "expert program", GUI, whatever appears that will allow
>someone to enter their "want" into a computer and have it spit out drawings
>and specs, we'll all be in trouble.
Agreed. The tools my automechanic uses are far more sophisticated than
my simple wrences and pliers, but he knows how to use them. They would
be useless in my hands. Yet these same tools don't leap out of the box
and fix my car, the mechanic still has to manipulate them.
>There is no question in my mind that CAD is a "better way" but it is still
>just a means to an end. If you don't know how to reach that end, all the
>computer skills in the world won't help you find it.
That, in essence, is what most of us are ranting about. Just said
another and perhaps better way.
Culprandy
>designers or drafters? I don't mean to harp on this, but a "designer"
>should be the one who knows what should be presented visually (or by
>ones and zeros in a digital file, depending on how the work is done)
>as a description of the concept, based on design
>criteria/standards/specs and input from engineers.
"My guys" include all 3; drafters (appentice), designers and engineers.
Drafters are "cubs" , usually 5 yrs. or less, who are learning design and
application. The designers include degreed engineers and non-degreed
experienced people. Engineers are the guys who crunch the numbers, some of
them (the younger) are begining to see the light and learn CAD. My guess is in
20yrs. all designers will have engineering degrees.
BTW the saying around the office is:
"If it's ugly or doesn't fit, blame the designer, if it falls down, blame the
engineer, ."
just me,
Randy
Culprandy
>just a means to an end. If you don't know how to reach that end, all the
>computer skills in the world won't help you find it.
(sorry if I mis-read your post)
My comment is aimed not at the "means" but the "end". I believe the product is
changing. We are no longer just producing paper drawings, we have entered the
"information age". Even where the product is the same, the schedule is now
such that we need the drawings NOW.
just me,
Randy
Culprandy
>"Your" guys? You sound like a treat to work with.
>Do own the company, or are you merely a hired hand?
A little of both, I'm the Lead Designer.
>I'd get off that high horse before it's to late - before you start believing
>that you are the next Napolian.
>Many a good person has fallen into that trap.
I use the phrase "my guys" (actually at work I say 'my people') the way many
say "my team". We work very well together, because we each respect the other's
talents. If a member of the team begins to lose focus, the rest of "my guys"
will point it out to him. If it becomes a habit, he'll be replaced.
Besides I like the view from up here ;-)
BTW, "guys" is gender neutral, for me. Many of our best and brightest are
women.
just me,
Randy
Culprandy
>with images in their daily jobs, not words. Whether the images are
>invoked by Computer Assisted "D" (does that "D" signify "Design" or
>"Drafting"?) or paper drawings is irrellevant.
In our shop, we produce much more than paper output. We must provide large
amounts of data that 30yrs. ago was not required (not possible), or was
generated using vast amouts of TIME.
>The "D" in CAD has long been used by software manufacturers/vendors to
>imply things that their software *simply cannot do*. Software cannot
>design, period.
Agreed. However, (always one of those) the "A" part of CAD means "AIDED". The
software provides tools that greatly aid the design. It is a design tool, like
a slide-rule used to be. The program allows for "what-ifs" in a way that was
impossible before. It can return information at a very fast rate. Imagine
area calcs a few years ago, took all day with a planimeter and a calculator,
now can be done in a few seconds. This frees up the designer to focus on
design.
just me,
Randy
jo...@fel.u-net.com
wrote:
>
>In our shop, we produce much more than paper output. We must provide large
>amounts of data that 30yrs. ago was not required (not possible), or was
>generated using vast amouts of TIME.
>
So, thirty years ago it was neither possible nor required.
Today it is possible. Is it required? Or just available.
>software provides tools that greatly aid the design.
Not really. It aids the designer.
I'm not arguing with you, just restating your point.
John
Marshall Caudle
wrote:
>BTW the saying around the office is:
>
>"If it's ugly or doesn't fit, blame the designer, if it falls down, blame the
>engineer, ."
>
>just me,
>Randy
As a point of reference as to what is important - have you ever heard
of a "designer" being sued because a builidng or for that matter - a
product - being ugly?
In my field (architecture) I can think of several well know national
and international architects (designers) who would be spending all
their time in court!
Semper Fi
Marshall
Culprandy
>>amounts of data that 30yrs. ago was not required (not possible), or was
>>generated using vast amouts of TIME.
>>
>So, thirty years ago it was neither possible nor required.
>Today it is possible. Is it required? Or just available.
If the client wants it, it is required. There's a large amount of "squeezing"
these days to get the "squeel out of the pig". Call it fine tuning, tweaking,
or what ever, getting the last drop is the target today.
>>software provides tools that greatly aid the design.
>
>Not really. It aids the designer.
>I'm not arguing with you, just restating your point.
I believe they aid the design as well.
just me,
Randy
Culprandy
>of a "designer" being sued because a builidng or for that matter - a
>product - being ugly?
>
>In my field (architecture) I can think of several well know national
>and international architects (designers) who would be spending all
>their time in court!
I know what you mean. In our business "ugly" may not get you sued, but you may
not get to bid on the next project.
just me,
Randy
Paul Bowers
> If the client wants it, it is required. There's a large amount of "squeezing"
> these days to get the "squeel out of the pig". Call it fine tuning, tweaking,
> or what ever, getting the last drop is the target today.
I'm going to bite on this one. If a client has hired someone else to
perform a task, chances are that s/he doesn't know what they are
doing. They know what they want the end result to be, but don't
necessarily know how to get there.
This type of situation frequently results in mass confusion for all
involved, since noone has the final say.
Maybe I'll incorporate myself as "Noone", they seem to be pretty
popular these days.
Holiday greetings,
Paul
Reini Urban
> With all due respect to Dennis: The information, not the medium, is the
> message.
Exactly that's my problem with some current "design schools".
It really should be but it is not.
> > Reini Urban wrote in message <385e9221.24710591@judy>...
> > >Currently I see a backstrike of anti-postmodernism or so-called
> > >"reflexive modernism", which means a more functional approach to design
> > >again. But this might be wishful thinking.
> > >The holland and french design school is still allmighty here in europe.
> > >I cannot speak that much about american design schools, but my guess is
> > >that is still not functional enough :)
> >
> > I prefer negative positivism, but lean toward pre-reflective Arthurianism
> > with it's Camalotion pretensions.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/news/faq/autolisp.html
Culprandy
>perform a task, chances are that s/he doesn't know what they are
>doing. They know what they want the end result to be, but don't
>necessarily know how to get there.
Or they don't have the manpower or hardware to get it done. Which is more
likely the case. Most of our clients had their own design divisions once upon
a time, but found it more feasible to contract those services. Usually, they
know very well what they want, need and can get.
>This type of situation frequently results in mass confusion for all
>involved, since noone has the final say.
The client ALWAYS has the final say. I reserve the right to point out (once) a
poor decision, but if he wants it upside-down and purple, then buy the paint
and get everybody out of it. Its his money, his facility, his decision.
just me,
Randy
Paul Bowers
> "Mike" <mtl...@concentric.net> writes:
> > With all due respect to Dennis: The information, not the medium, is the
> > message.
>
> Exactly that's my problem with some current "design schools".
> It really should be but it is not.
That's pretty much my original point. We're losing a lot of
experience-based knowledge because of so much attention to CAD.
I'm a piping designer, not an architect, but I see this gradual
erosion every day.
Control of the drawings (and everything related to drawing production)
seems to be slowly slipping away from the drafters, and that's scary.
Paul
Marshall Caudle
wrote:
>
>The client ALWAYS has the final say. I reserve the right to point out (once) a
>poor decision, but if he wants it upside-down and purple, then buy the paint
>and get everybody out of it. Its his money, his facility, his decision.
But if that decision affects the health, safety and welfare of the
public - it's your license! Even now, the new building codes are
involved with more than just health and safety issues (have you seen
the new HCP code here in NC - it's thicker than the General Building
Code) and we (as designers and the architect of record) are held
accountable - not the owner, not the contractor, but us!
Semper Fi
Marshall
Culprandy
>(once) a
>>poor decision, but if he wants it upside-down and purple, then buy the paint
>>and get everybody out of it. Its his money, his facility, his decision.
>
>But if that decision affects the health, safety and welfare of the
>public - it's your license! Even now, the new building codes are
>involved with more than just health and safety issues (have you seen
>the new HCP code here in NC - it's thicker than the General Building
>Code) and we (as designers and the architect of record) are held
>accountable - not the owner, not the contractor, but us!
>
I don't know about your clients, but mine have a very good working knowledge of
all applicable codes and standards. I have yet to have one disregard anything
safety related.
just me,
Randy
Dave Jones
right, and to do whatever they want. Everyone's clients aren't as
professional or moral as yours. I, for one, won't do whatever a client
wants, if I know that the result would be detrimental to them, me, or anyone
else. They can keep their money if they try to make me...neener, neener,
neener :)
Dave
(snip)
Marshall Caudle
wrote:
>>>The client ALWAYS has the final say. I reserve the right to point out
>>(once) a
>>>poor decision, but if he wants it upside-down and purple, then buy the paint
>>>and get everybody out of it. Its his money, his facility, his decision.
>>
>>But if that decision affects the health, safety and welfare of the
>>public - it's your license! Even now, the new building codes are
>>involved with more than just health and safety issues (have you seen
>>the new HCP code here in NC - it's thicker than the General Building
>>Code) and we (as designers and the architect of record) are held
>>accountable - not the owner, not the contractor, but us!
>>
>
>I don't know about your clients, but mine have a very good working knowledge of
>all applicable codes and standards. I have yet to have one disregard anything
>safety related.
Very few of my clients have any knowledge of the code requirements
they are required to meet before they can construct their builidng.
Most of the time they think I am just trying to inflate the cost of
their building. I hear all the time, "I didn't do that last time I
built something" or the "architect on my last project didn't do that!"
Quite frequently the reason it wasn't done last time is the designer
was some youngster who didn't know the difference or the code - which
is exactly what started this rant. I find myself continually
explaining the building code, the handicap code, the plumbing code,
ADA, etc. The one thing they do understand is how much all these
regulations cost them.
>
>just me,
>Randy
Semper Fi
Marshall
LONGSHOT
Culprandy <culp...@aol.com1john3-1> wrote in message
news:19991224115229...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Derrek Haynes
Been enjoying this immensly, thought I'd contribute.
I've been in CAD since 1980, Unigraphics, Intergraph, PCad,
Autocad, Microstation. Back then, most CAD applications
seemed electrical, electronic and piping because of
their intelligent logic checking.
As a new inexperienced entry, I went with
the jobs I could find and as such found myself
wooed away from my mechanical education to be
`typecast' as an electrical cad operator.
By knowing CAD, not being expert in one
discipline, I've fed myself for 20 odd years without
design level knowledge in any of them.
This isn't to say I wasn't after the knowledge,
but to be frank, most positions involved one prime
directive. `Do it my way'.
Few deadlined based companies were interested in
actually training staff. preferring experience everytime.
Though short sighted, this policey is still prevelant.
Many times I'd forward ideas and be vetoed simply
because the project was an experienced engineers
baby. Learning in these instances is by osmosis at best.
In defense of the simple CAD operator...
I found that design work required a different mindset, one
of innovation and creativity that was distracted by the
bottleneck of having to stop and record it in drawings.
An engineer wrestling with a new application
or a new combination of old ones for a complicated
project benefited by having me translate his concepts
to the media.
Instead of carrying 20 variables in his/her mind and having
to stop and remember how to fillet a line in the middle of what might
be a spark of genius, a simple sketch or note or a mumbled
thought over my shoulder kept the flow going.
The concept hit paper faster, with a more efficient use of
white space and sometimes with smoother notes describing
it so it could be then be used in the field or shop by anyone.
As a CAD draughtsman, I feel my best contribution to the project
is to document and communicate the concepts using whatever
tools and techniques are available quickly.
A previous poster mentioned how Win2000 and Acad2000 combined
are easily a full time study. I fully agree since Autocad alone
boasts hundreds of changes/additions to their command set
with every upgrade.
Add the usual computer glitches, software bugs, unusual
client requests, multiple projects, multiple clients. aging hardware
drivers, new exchange modes like intranets, LANS or realtime DWG
sharing over the internet, and several engineers all with personal
idiosyncracies and you have a recipe for one busy CAD man.
To be considered `clueless' chaffes somewhat, and `just' drafting
is to liken a piano player's perfect rendition of a classical piece as
`laying down someone else's designs'.
Every corporation has a responsibility to further
the bottom line by encouraging in house training, subsidizing
continuing education and insisting those who know share,
but how many do?
As an aside, it's also interesting how many draughstman
went on to become valid artists from their board days.
Now I reckon the equivalent might be found in the computer
animated movies we see.
My thoughts anyway,
Derrek
"R. Wink" wrote:
> Paul Bowers wrote:
>
> > I hope to spark a discussion, so please forgive me. It's really just a
> > bunch of questions.
> >
> > What is the future of "design" (relative to conveying the graphic
> > description of a buildable thing)? Has the concept of "designer" been
> > replaced by all-knowing software?
> >
> > Are we churning out legions of (insert preferred software here)
> > CAD-capable technicians that know the innermost workings of the latest
> > release but are clueless when it comes to field experience?
----------SNIP---------
>
>
> > Paul
>
> Just so you know, I don't normally reply to any of these rants but in your
> case...........
>
> I've been in custom process equipment design and manufacture for 35 years,
> going from a floor sweeper to running my own company. During that time I,
> like you, have seen a decrease in the technical ability of the "incoming"
> designers. Most companies now will not hire a person to do design without
> a college degree in engineering. Yet most of these people can't even
> start or organize a project, they don't have the practical experience.
> All they seem capable of doing is to regurgitate what they were taught in
> college (by professors who can't make it in the real world.) I've hired
> enough professors in summer jobs that I no longer bother with them, they
> don't have the ability to do anything but drafting, laying down someone
> else's designs (an old saying - those that can, do; those that can't,
> teach)
>
> Asked to "invent" anything, which is the design process, a very very
> limited few have a clue to the process of invention. All of the "cad"
> operators I have seen in my area are capable of doing is to take someone
> else's idea and turn it into a drawing which will be passed to the
> fabrication shop..and sometimes it's even correct. Most of the time, the
> "cad" operators have no or little experience in the process of making what
> they're drawing. The fab. shop can't make the part as drawn, they have to
> make some modification for the process.
>
> ------SNIP----------
> Sorry about this being so long but you've touched a nerve that I rant
> about to anyone who'll listen
>
> R. Wink
Paul Bowers
using CAD in most cases. Excellent observation below:
Derrek Haynes wrote, in part:
> In defense of the simple CAD operator...
> I found that design work required a different mindset, one
> of innovation and creativity that was distracted by the
> bottleneck of having to stop and record it in drawings.
Not to mention staying on top of the inevitable design changes over
the duration of the project. "Simple CAD operator" implies a reduced
status. If we're "stuck with" CAD (which we are), tasks need to be
intelligently distributed.
> An engineer wrestling with a new application
> or a new combination of old ones for a complicated
> project benefited by having me translate his concepts
> to the media.
Due to the nature of piping design, I find that designers essentially
function as engineers (after the P&IDs are prepared) and operate
autonomously, checking in with the engineers when particular problems
arise.
> Instead of carrying 20 variables in his/her mind and having
> to stop and remember how to fillet a line in the middle of what might
> be a spark of genius, a simple sketch or note or a mumbled
> thought over my shoulder kept the flow going.
Absolutely. Maybe I'm addle-brained or just incompetent, but I find
that piping design is an iterative process whereby the designer must
focus on many possible solutions at once, modifying the original
concept as the project progresses. Adding complicated CAD work to that
takes away from thought patterns required to think in advance (and
adds value to the notion of "simple CAD operator".
> The concept hit paper faster, with a more efficient use of
> white space and sometimes with smoother notes describing
> it so it could be then be used in the field or shop by anyone.
>
> As a CAD draughtsman, I feel my best contribution to the project
> is to document and communicate the concepts using whatever
> tools and techniques are available quickly.
>
> A previous poster mentioned how Win2000 and Acad2000 combined
> are easily a full time study. I fully agree since Autocad alone
> boasts hundreds of changes/additions to their command set
> with every upgrade.
I'd like to emphasize the above paragraphs.
> Add the usual computer glitches, software bugs, unusual
> client requests, multiple projects, multiple clients. aging hardware
> drivers, new exchange modes like intranets, LANS or realtime DWG
> sharing over the internet, and several engineers all with personal
> idiosyncracies and you have a recipe for one busy CAD man.
>
> To be considered `clueless' chaffes somewhat, and `just' drafting
> is to liken a piano player's perfect rendition of a classical piece as
> `laying down someone else's designs'.
>
> Every corporation has a responsibility to further
> the bottom line by encouraging in house training, subsidizing
> continuing education and insisting those who know share,
> but how many do?
Thanks Derreck, for that thoughtful post, and I hope I haven't
screwed-up the intent of my few replies to your comments.
Paul
PipingDesign.com