|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:02 am Post subject: The difference between CADD and CAD |
    |
|
Hi
Back in the late 80' when I allready spended a few years at the architect acadamy , a lot of books described CAD as CADD --- Computer aided design and Drafting or as how other say it Computer Aided Drafting and Design.
But allready at that time, most who acturly dealed with the creature, simply called it CAD, Computer Aided Design.
Now I know it is difficult for some, to accept that there been progress since those day's where the last "D" said something about how CADD was used ; it was mainly used in just that CADD aproach ,as a replacement for drafting, acturly most often the result was the same as drafting ,a paper drawing just like the one done by hand.
Now for some it is difficult to understand that things evolve, that it is difficult to talk about drafting when no paper is involved. It also seem that it is very difficult to accept that CAD have progressed and the end result not anymore, need to be a paper drawing --- that the potential are the direct link from digital drawing to the mashin producing the projected assembly. ------ We don't need the paper drawing we long ago scrapped the last "D" in CADD , CAD is not anymore just an easy eraser but carry and shuld be allowed to carry the innovative aproach.
The CADD is as it describe itself an computer aided design and dragfting thing, ----- but if you use that name for CAD, you also say that the end result must be paper drawings, that the new technology are there only to support an outdated aproach, doing things as just how before computers, but helping the lazy drafter with a smart eraser ----- REALY , is this all the vision you have about the new technikes ?
99 pct. call it CAD and with good reson as drafting are not the issue the issue are to further develob and not staying with 1989 names for something that evolved far further , ------- if you say you know CADD ,well you proberly know the old way's and paper drawings, and can maby only understand CAD as a replacement of a pen and a smart eraser, but please don't go out and try presave people that CAD must stay with 1989 standards, ------- you don't protect the old on the behave of the new, if you realy know CADD then you shuld also know that the next step in CADD are CAD, that CAD is not here just and only to make paper drawings as how the last D indicate. No the real term are CADCAM.
But you proberly also know everything about that ?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to make sure you understand , then I don't care what the thing was called in 1989 I progressed CAD much further than being just about a new drafting tool. And it is a lame critic with no arguments to complain that CAD shuld be called CADD , why shuld it and where in the CADD aproach, are the direct link the innovative aproach, when CAD is only accepted to be a a digital pen to make a paper drawing -- CAD is much more than that, and it shuld not stay as how it was seen in 1989 as just a smart eraser.
Beside I don't do CADD I make CAD and CADCAM. ----- sure I have a pen plotter ,but it is not the end goal ,just to make more perfect paper drawings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gleearch
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Location: Oakland, CA , USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nobody's arguing with you here.
You might want to join the AUGI forum. Lots of cad users, assuming you use autocad. No big deal if you don't.
I think the term CAD is just used generically to refer to any form of software used in the AEC industry to generate drawings or designs.
CAD is evolving, agreed. Take a closer look at BIM ( building information modeling), especially Revit. I understand that you are a CADCAM operator so obviously there are different software for you to utilize. But for the building industry, it's moving towards BIM.
So for the most part CAD is mainstream and fully accepted by the AEC industry (except for a very small minority).
_________________
Gerard Lee Architects
http://www.gleearchitects.com
San Francisco bay area, Oakland, CA based sustainable architecture & planning firm specializing in residential, education, commercial, community & civic projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see it this way, that with the CADD aproach you was "drawing" as like you would have done manually but with a very smart new feature, that you could erase lines without a trace.
But with CAD you sort of "draw" with the motion of the production cutter.
If a production ask a Solid model as the pre-processor expect that, then you must emagine how what you draw, is processed by the production, how material are cut ,acturly the result is not lines but tool patches .
For the designer this mean that your "pen" become more than just a pencil to make a drawing of the thing acturly you line out the route to cut the material a very different aproach --- but proberly the only one, that will offer a direct link from design on screen ,to routing the cutting piece in the N.C. controlled mashin. But this also mean that the designer will be more in touch with the design ,that more detail and knowhow have to be put into it ----- with my method, as it work so different, it mean that the designer need to have a reasoable feel about materials and assembly technike ; you can't just sketch out just anything without knowing the materials or how cube structures add to strength -- it ask a thruout feel, a vision about your design and you can't blame the engineer as you project the design by core.
CAD ofcaurse moved from being just a neater drawingboard with it's main edge that you can erase without trace, to be a tool to steer the cutting edge ,so you in a direct link, can produce the intire thing ; I find it a small cost to scrap the paper drawing, but in fact there are no use for it in CAD where in CADD it was just about producing a better paper drawing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gleearch
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 185
Location: Oakland, CA , USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed.
In BIM, you model or construct the model and have to think or know how it's going to be constructed. Similar process. Eventually a paperless environment maybe achieve in the AEC industry as it seems to be in CADCAM.
_________________
Gerard Lee Architects
http://www.gleearchitects.com
San Francisco bay area, Oakland, CA based sustainable architecture & planning firm specializing in residential, education, commercial, community & civic projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Sorry gleearch I am only talking about building cheap strong houses.
When pipes and cables is projected, inmy model it work by subtracting tube formed Solids from the basic 3D solid model. That way leadway's is made in each section that later are cut into an easy assemble of building elements.
Why it work different is that it produce the outlines of each assembly in scale one to one, so a simple N.C. cutere can make it the prefered sheet material.
The tubes you carv out of the Solid model don't deal with how much cable or how many pipes have to be put thru the section assembly , but doing it is no problem, as long as the designer remembered to subtract cylinders from the basic model, before it get sliced 3D-H vise.
Eh my method only provide the raw structure, still this also mean, that you can prepare for a window wall or carve out for floors in various levels, it all will be supported by strong frames in a cube structure. Made from just one material , the sinplest and cheapest . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ontop this attitude offer something that never was offered before, still to understand it it ask you to look at a 3D-H framework understand the concept and realise how a building compoment is acturly produced .
The issue is the basic 3D model, how that one by a simple sectioning but not nesserly from the tradisional planes , offer that assembly framework that uniquely offer frames that transverse the structure and in one frame can act as first foundation for a floor, then transverse up the structure , and underway act as various support frames for walls, other floors and maby end up at the roof and support the paneling there Now, oposed the early computer meshes ( Gethry and others ) this method offer a digital generated structure or framework, that oposed that , hold it's measures down millimeters ,making it possible to revisit the original 3D model and "make it grow" by adding more building volume and by a new slicing 3D-H vise following the old sections , you are able to add the framework new frames forming the limits the structure even with floors and internal walls , as how you added more volumes to the building model.
-------- Now if you think it is not worth waiting for the promised organic building structure, then here are a method that allow the designer to alter a structure, repair a framework or expand parts in a way so the foundations the frames, the new volumes will be connected and expand the frames allready there in a way so you can say that the building grow as an organic thing ; now that don't mean organic forms as what I talk about can aswell be geometrics that is added more geometric volumes, not round rooms but aswell square rooms -- realy this tool tread the volumes as a clay model it's the designers abilities and visions that instantly reflect and the structure shape to support and make an added volume possible and structual better than doing it by forcing and fighting rigid strait profiles. Now this is just one nice side effect but architecture like this, is not easy projected on the tradisional floor plan, in fact the tradisional drafting is not usefull for displaying these frameworks as the frames don't follow the tradisional planes ; if you tried to "define" a 3D-H structure from top side and front , only the top view could be used for anything ,but that anything would be only a map of the floor ,the two other planes would be nonsense would not make any help projecting or manufactoring a frame structure, that do not follow any of these planes.
Now this can only be explained better, if you try emagine what will be in the drawing ,if you try slice a build framework , try look at any 3D-H structures and you will see, that to force this allready by two other planes well defined and ready to manufactor framework , into the old and in this technike meaningless front or side view.
A method like 3D-H don't need any paper drawings to be produced, and there are no meaning to try slice it the tradisional way as it is allready ready to be manufactired, and please emagine how useless and without meaning it will be, to force an allready working projecting, back into the in this situation meaningless tradisional front side and top views --- what to use them for. Why do it unless you didn't understand the 3D-H method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again just with what the words Jeanneret write Jeanneret prove what is on Jeannerets mind ; is is to discuss architecture no.
Just click on the posts Jeanneret wrote ,just under Jeannerets name ,and you will see hundreds of dirty mails Jeanneret wrote.
For the Moderators of this fora ; how can you let a person act like this in your fora's ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
