 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
World Wide Comments on the 1998 Results 
Architectural CADD Awards : (check the results page for what categories in which these awards were won)
The ARRIS Team 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 - 6 Gold, 4 Silver, 4 Bronze
The ArchiCAD Team 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 - 5 Gold, 7 Silver, 5 Bronze
The MicroStation Team 3 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 - 3 Gold, 4 Silver, 5 Bronze
The AllPlan Team 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 - 3 Gold, 4 Silver, 2 Bronze
The ArchiTECH.PC Team 3 3 1 1 3 1 - 3 Gold, 3 Bronze
The MiniCAD / VectorWorks Team 3 1 2 - 1 Gold, 1 Silver, 1 Bronze
The DataCAD Team 2 3 - 1 Silver, 1 Bronze
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 22:20:50 EST
From: JTagerman@aol.com
Here's the toppers for those who can't wait to know:
1: Arris
2: Archicad
I'm sure the full list will be posted shortly with details DataCAD did a very much above satisfactory presentation and design as well as being one of the very few participants that completed ALL of the required criteria. The Forum should be proud, as I'm sure you all are. Jeff Tagerman, CADvantage
From: jsfoster <jsfoster1@mindspring.com>
It might be appropriate to disqualify those teams which can't seem to perform all the requirements and finish the whole program. Jonathan Foster., Team member '96
Langdon response :
We want to make the entire project just a little beyond possible, as it is very telling for us to see what a Team chooses not to do (i.e. if they chose not to do a particular requirement (knowing full well it would hurt them in the point scores) perhaps they did because it is particularly hard to do in their software. We have had to raise the complexity of the design problem each year as in the past Teams had actually "finished" the project (at least to the schematic level the Design Shootout requires). This year we knew for sure that no Team would be completely finished, simply because of the scale of the project, but we knew that it was certainly possible to have the overall building concept and schematics in the allotted time. This was also meant to address the claim in the past that there was "no design in the Design Shootout" and the "3D isn't really that important" issues - i.e. this year it was all 3D schematic design (we really didn't expect anything even close to construction documents). Thus, disqualifying any Teams that don't finish is moot - the penalty they take is in lower point scores from both the audience and the more scrutinous jury (part of whose job is to point out any missing work (or irrelevant eye-candy) to the audience).
From: Kevin Benjamin <kbenj@shore.net>
Good job on the shootout yesterday - I think it went very well. I know you're probably incredibly busy and/or tired at this point, but I had to leave before you posted the results, and I've had to spend a sleepless night wondering.....would you email the results to your mailing list, or update the web site ASAP? Thanks.
(My prediction - Archicad first, Arris second, Allplan third (or tied with Arris for second) KB
Hey, Geoff. Apparently not everyone got this message. Note your answer to the very direct question "(Have) Architectural Desktop and Vectorworks ... officially been released? In other words, can I get a copy today?" You say "Yes... The intent is that architects can buy the software being used in the competition right at the event..." You don't say "pay for." Having a product that is "expected to ship by the end of the year" as the MiniCAD/Vectorworks rep said, is far from "allow(ing) people to compete with software that the CDs were available later that week." Good thing they didn't finish in the top four, eh? Otherwise you would have LOTS of unhappy competitors.
Let me know what you think about this discrepancy, and how things will be handled next year.
Langdon Response :
This caught me offguard. I was truly under th impression that there were to be VectorWorks packages available at Build Boston98. In fact they did have shrinkwrapped boxes of VectorWorks there for people to take home with them, thus a possible explaination for the misunderstanding. I found it personally embarassing when two Teams (VectorWorks, and DenebaCAD) admitted to using "beta" software in the competition (and then other Teams commented well, if we can use beta then we could really - yada yada). For future competitions, yes, we will now have to be even more hard nose strict, and disqualify any Team not using publically available shipping software. In every case where Teams used either late-beta or extremely new software in the past they ran into severe complications (Architrion and AllPlan in 96, AutoCAD, Arris, and Arc+ in 97, and now VectorWorks, AutoCAD Architectural Desktop, and DenebaCAD in 98). In every case, what few new features they would have impressed us with was blown away by not having the software work properly or loosing too much time by not being familiar with the new layout.
From : Robert Anderson <randerson@diehlgraphsoft.com>
>You said:
>"I found it personally embarassing when two Teams (VectorWorks, and DenebaCAD) admitted to using "beta" software in the competition (and thenother Teams commented well, if we can use beta then we could really - yada yada)."
Geoffrey, we discussed this ahead of time and I thought we had this straight. You told me, and I quote, "It's OK if the product is imminently shipping and you'll take orders for it at Build Boston." We proceeded based on this and didn't pre-release a limited edition, which we easily could have done. And we're taking orders based on ship date before the end of the year. At no time did I represent anything otherwise to you. Let me remind you that there are no written rules on this topic posted anywhere. Everyone is therefore reduced to their own interpretation of the rules based on conversations and oral meetings. >>>
Langdon Response :
You are right. That indeed was our understanding.
I guess I was hoping that it would be phrased "imminently shipping" at the competition. It was that ominous word
"beta" that alarmed everyone (as there is a very big difference between experimental may-never-happen early beta software and late beta we-even-have-shrinkwrapped-boxes software). In any necessary reputtals, you can rest assured you have my full backing.
You are also right that for future competitions we will have to make this clearer. I don't know whether we should mak cut off dates or what, any suggestions as a Cup Trustee ?
From: Jose Mapily <jmapily@fac.howard.edu>
Geoffrey,
You did a great job with the Cadd Shootout. I enjoyed meeting you and will try to keep in touch. I like your Web page. Jose' Mapily
Posted to the MiniCAD internet maillist :
From: Robert Anderson <randerson@DIEHLGRAPHSOFT.COM>
Hi everyone;
Sorry I've been off my email for the last 5 days and am just now getting caught up, which is you can imagine a pretty big job.
I want to start off saying a hearty 'thanks' to this list for all the well wishes we've received from the list.
By now of course you know we didn't win. The good news is Rich says I still have a job ;-) We did have a good time and finished in the middle of the pack (5th in overall vote I'm pretty sure). Every one who finished above us was a program costing $4000 or more; 3 of the 4 were specialty architectural programs. Here are a few observations and 'lessons learned' to share with all:
0. This was a weird year in the competition; the first two years were pretty similar in scope and this year the programmatic scope of the design challenge took a -huge- leap in size and complexity. In addition, the competitors were expected to do 8 vignettes that were 'mini challenges' that varied in length from 2 to 3 minutes. The job was -much- harder overall. It's not clear why the design challenge was raised to such a large scope.
1. Beta software is always a risk, but not necessarily for the reasons you might think. Sometimes the simple lack of experience with a software's behavior can be the problem rather than bombs. For example, we were having terrible problems with VW/RW late in the competition. We were obviously running out of memory, but we didn't know why. Turns out we were manipulating 15-20 MB files! (Those render bitmaps, uncompressed, get darn large. Duh.)
2. Renderworks is way cool; the render bitmap tool will be a strong "weapon" in future competitions. It can create instant elevations that really look good.
3. The vignettes (mini-design challenge/demos) went well for us; we'll see how we did (score-wise) on Geoffrey's web site. We answered every challenge and showed that VW's capabilities are as good as the other guys'. Someone suggested that we demo Renderworks in the vignettes. This is a good idea, but the vignettes were pretty structured and we wanted to get back to the design once we'd done our due. We did show in our final presentation some Renderworks-rendered screens of our vignettes.
4. Our strategy was that, since the vignettes would address the technical merits of the program, we would take on a more daring design, to dispel the notion forwarded by some of last years' competitors that 'MiniCad was good only for houses'. This is a risky strategy, and we paid the price, since we didn't get as complete as we would have wished, but we had many compliments on the design.
The judges, being CAD consultants and not architects, penalized us more for not completing (which is a checklist-able criterion) and didn't reward us for more interesting design, which is subjective. If Geoffrey wants this competition to continue as something interesting, he's going to have to include architects among the judges, and he's going to have to include design evaluation criteria. It is, after all, billed as a design competition.
5. When faced with an impossible problem, such as designing an entertainment complex comprising 70,000-80,000 SF on a NYC pier, one has the choice of doing a more interesting design and risking not completing, or doing a box and finishing. Most of the designs took the latter approach and were pretty banal. (You don't go into Manhattan and propose for a major entertainment center a big box with residential roofs on it, at least not in the place I know as "Manhattan".)
The event organizers will have to realize that the crazy spiraling of difficulty of the architectural challenges presented is now to the point where it's counter productive. The trivialization of design -required- by this years format doesn't do the profession any good and in my opinion is a primary reason why the AIA won't touch this competition with a 3-meter pole. Geoffrey described this as a 'do-able' project within the time constraints, but I generally think the results say strongly otherwise.
6. The luck of the draw (for presentation order) was against us this year. We presented second, which means we didn't have enough recovery time to present well. I don't think we presented as well as we drew; in this respect it resembled the first year.
7. The results apparently were frustrating for everyone except Arris, who won the Cup back. When he presented the results, Geoffrey was visibly agitated and I think frustrated, for reasons that will be his to divulge or not. ArchiCad was frustrated; for 'the third year in a row', they were second place. Bentley was frustrated; they did a very good job, but got only third. And Autocad, well..
8. AutoCad was not only frustrated, they were "humbled" in their own words. Some of the more experienced competitors were amused when they saw that the ACAD/AD team brought along a scanner and a tub-full of architectural reference books! They must have thought that they would have time to scan in facades of famous buildings to texturemap on to their volumes.
They ended up with very little, for one of the most elaborate software packages there (they were using ACAD/AD in combination with 3D Studio VIZ 2.0). The funny thing is, the particular problem presented -should- have been a lay-down for ACAD/AD's space planning module; frankly, the design problem almost seemed to have been structured with that particular module in mind.
9. Capabilities that (some of) the other packages demonstrated that MCVW doesn't (yet) do:
- 'live' sectioning; not only as a rendering, but also animated;
- Croppable compositing (sim to paper space/model space);
- Buttons on screen (Arris got a round of applause for a linked drawing tool; Click on a drawing symbol for a section, get taken to that section. it's a trick, but a good one. We should be able to do a similar 'trick' in Content.)
- 'Live' shaded fly-throughs using OpenGL acceleration.
It's a pretty short list... I really think Vectorworks/Renderworks is a great program and an excellent upgrade for -all- MiniCad users.
Lastly, I want to express my profound thanks to and respect for Jim Larson and Phil Buterbaugh for their greatly successful efforts of the last three shootouts. I know how much time we took to prepare for each, and I share to a certain degree Jim's frustration with the politics in the shootout arena. Jim's presence will be missed in the future. I expect to continue my involvement with the shootout either as a competitor or coach. Phil's not talkin'; his mama raised a smart boy who's keeping his options open ;-)
I want to express once more my thanks for the kind sentiments from the participants on this list. I want you all to know that I look forward to successfully meeting the challenges we have ahead for DGI.
============================================================
Robert Anderson Director of Content Development Diehl Graphsoft Inc randerson@diehlgraphsoft.com
From: Michael Beattie <evernow@connriver.net>
Well done, Mr. Langdon!
What a lot of work they did! Thanks for yours in setting this up and continuing to improve it.
ON that note, I had a few thoughts as I sat in the audience...
1. The rules should be more strictly enforced. If a team neglects to finish a part of the requirements, that should be noted on a big screen at the end, during the presentations;you know, a scorecard for everyone to see tallying each completed requirement-or not- along with other pertinant info we forget too easily: cost of software, complete; cost of hardware (they should be informed in advance so they all have the info ready).
2. What to do about the big gap in software cost (and, presumably, the company's ability to invest in product improvements. this time felt a bit like Davids vs. Goliaths, with the lowest to higest prices a ten-fold jump.
3. How about weighting the judging criteria? Can you find out what's most important to people? For instance, I do little work in 3D, but crank out lots of 2D.
4. The audience judgin sheet was too complex for me to work with effectively. I wonder how much meaning it had for other people. The smaller "ballot" which was our only choice last time, is probably better for the audience. (Iknow you expanded audience choice by request, but I think your first way may have been better)
All in all, an amazing event. And it's remarkable that the designers are willing to put in so much time to this, presumably unpaid. Kudos to all of them.
I'm looking forward to a detailed results listing soon on your web page. Actually, this may be much more meaningful than the "big winner"
Michael Beattie, AIA Middletown Springs, VT
From: Robert Anderson <randerson@diehlgraphsoft.com>
Michael Beattie writes:"What to do about the big gap in software cost (and, presumably, the company's ability to invest in product improvements. this time felt a bit like Davids vs. Goliaths, with the lowest to higest prices a ten-fold jump."
I think Michael may be inadvertantly putting forward a view that in the case of Diehl Graphsoft is a misconception.
The suggested price of software is a marketing decision. Vertical (i.e, architecture only) products such as Arris, Allplan, ArchiTech.PC, and ArchiCad may be forced to charge relatively high prices for their software, but this doesn't translate into capability or ability to improve the product. This relates more strongly to market size and the size of their overall user base. Since for example the above products would only be used by AEC professionals, these software companies must base their revenue on capturing a share of a relatively 'vertical' market and upon achieving growth of market share.
Consider: Although MiniCad/VectorWorks is one of the least expensive packages competing in the Designers' CADD Shoot-out, Diehl Graphsoft employs over 22 full-time software engineers as well as 3 full-time contractors dedicated to the development of VectorWorks and RenderWorks. This size staff gives us a tremendous "ability to invest in product improvements", and the list of new features in VectorWorks as compared to MiniCad 7 bears this out.
>"What to do about the big gap in software cost (and, presumably, the
Langdon Responds :
What to DO about it is simple. The scores the Teams recieve do indeed reflect the jury and audience's perception on the value of the product relative to it's price. I agree, price is largely a marketing decision. For instance, the DataCAD marketing department chose to lower the price of DataCAD from $4,100 to $149 temporarily specifically to gain market share (which they did) even knowing many of those buyers may not stay with the software after the price went back up (to the $700 range).
The analogy I use is from sailing hardware - everyone on the planet needs a hammer in their toolbox, and hammers still cost $7.00; however a Barient Winch for trimming sails on boats in the 38' to 42' range is an extremely sophisticated and specialized piece of equipment with a tiny market of only a few hundred needed, which is why they cost $6,000 each. Architectural design software relative to general CADD drafting software is the same way - a tremendous greater effort to develop specialized software for a tiny (but very demanding) market. This whole theory, though, does not explain why AutoCAD is $4000+, but then no one can explain that.
The term Davids vs. Goliath is not appropriate here. Just by looking at the Design Shootout you can see that MiniCAD is no lightweight compared to any of the others (nor does it have to use a trick to win). In fact, an outsider who did not know this business would cast AutoCAD as the lightweight just looking at the demonstrated abilities. The COMPANIES on the other hand are indeed David and Goliaths, or even a stronger analogy, as Autodesk is something like one of the top 200 companies worldwide.
From: Design studio <arn_44@hotmail.com>
Subject: Shocked!!!
My thoughts
I watched almost the complete event. I am an autocad office and I am considering architectural desktop. Any ways when the decision was read for Arris I was completely flored. In fact, more so when I saw the final standings.
I cannot believe that DataCAD was scored so low. Minicad did not deserve the postion they recieved either did Microstation. In fact I thought the AchiTect/softcad team won the competition, that presentation was fabulous, its exaclty what I would like to do, and they came in 6th ?
Allplan's seemed very cumbersome. I know Arris and it is very complicated. Archicad gave a very confusing final presentation I could not even follow them.
I honestly Liked datacad and ArchitectPC the best. Especially during the vingnettes, they seemd to be the only teams that actually performed them real time. For Datacad to score so low is embarassing, they deserve much better than that. I think Microstation misrepresented itself several times.
Sadly enough I did agree with the scoring of Architectural desktop and denaba cad. I am sure this does not carry much merit, something is very wrong here. This competition is not a reliable gauge for software comparison. Thanks,
Arnold Barton Architect, Conneticut
From : Plaarch@aol.com
<<< I understand that many of the teams did not adhere strictly to the rules of the competition and may have used promotional material to display their product in a good light and did not complete all of the material from scratch as was required by the competrition. How will this be rectified in the next competition? Will there be referee's to penalize the offending teams, and will there be an impartial commissioner to oversee the that the competition is run strictly according to the rules. If not, the competition may develop the reputation of having a slight odor to it. >>>
Langdon response :
I would not say "many" of the Teams, when it was only two that were using not-quite-shipping software, which is the only rule possibly infracted. The measure we have already taken is to inform competitors that beta-software using Teams would be disqualified in future competitions.
The building design is from scratch, but we expect that the Teams would use their extensive symbol libraries and architectural macros to instantly build major portions of it. It says so in the competition information. In fact, without these symbol libraries and macros the idea of doing such a design project at all, even to the conceptual and schematic levels of design required would be ludicrous.
For instance, almost every Team had automatic stair, elevator, escalator, roof generators, which "built" those elements based on a few clicks of the mouse and some numeric input. Similarly, most Teams had libraries of restaurant furniture that they just plopped down where necessary. We WANT them to use these features, since it is a true measure of what you can do with the software.
The real question is how do we prevent them from doing the entire thing beforehand and just plunking down a finished building - and the answer is that they do not know either the site or the building project beforehand.
Does this mean that CADD software developers will then develop things like amphitheater-macros, restaurant seating symbols, store planning utilities, ramps and elevator generators ? Well, I certainly HOPE so. Those things would benefit all architects. Thus, the Design Shootout can be a virtual wish-list from the architect users to the software developers.
After showing us their building project, Teams are free to show us other features of their software in any way they wish, which they did. Thus, there were no rules infracted as you imply, nor any need to punish any non-existant infractors.
I wanted to get a last minute "good luck" off to you before The Designers 3D CAD Shoot-Out for Architectural CADD Systems.
Too bad you can't broadcast live!!! Well, maybe next year? Sorry I can't be there for the excitement, but I look forward to reading all about it on your www.page.
When the dust clears (does it ever?), what is the schedule for Architectural CADD - A Resource Guide? Do you have any 1/98 versions to send out, with upgrade to follow 1/99? I'm woefully behind, and desperately need your current, un-biased intelli-base (I hope that's not copyrighted) for the next leaps at this firm.
From: Michael Smith <wmitrop@tiac.net>
I was part of the DCAD team at the Shootout, so I may be naturally biased. I SPEAK PERSONALLY HERE AND NOT IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR DataCAD OR ANYONE ELSE ON THE TEAM.
I was proud of what the team did, and proud of the fact that we accomplished so much in so little time (a 74,000 s.f. multi-use facility on a New York City wharf). I was proud of the fact that we followed the rules as they were published. I was proud of Mark Madura and Rick Morse for the hours and hours of hard work and preparation they put into the event (you can't imagine), and equally proud of how well they performed.
Actually, as far as I know DCAD was the ONLY team to complete and present ALL the required criteria. DCAD was also one of the very few teams to have all their graphic output DONE at the end of the competition. Many others did their presentations "in real time" (ie - they had no saved images), which did not fulfill the requirements of the competition. The rules clearly stated that the images had to be done and WEB-ready when we all put our mice down. Many teams did this well after the competition was over.
Here were the required elements:
- - 3 Floor Plans
- - 2 Sections
- - 4 Elevations
- - 3D detail of a required "ship's wheel" element
- - 12 Perspectives
- - 2 Renderings (half of our other 12 required perspectives were fully rendered in Renderize)
- - Animation (ours was in .AVI format and fully rendered)
- - A "Special Feature" -- we did 2 Multi-Scale Plotting sheets
- - A VRML model of the building
- - Merging part of the final model with a real .BMP photograph provided by Geoff Langdon (we were the only team to do this)
Two teams used BETA software, which was also not supposed to be allowed by the competition rules. To their credit they did make that fact known right up front.
No sour grapes, here. I'm just stating the facts. You can all make your own judgements from there.
With that said, the Shootout was a great experience. I havent' been through anything that intense since I took the A.R.E. exam (the 4-day licensing exam here in the States) many years ago. Geoff Langdon really put together quite a project. I was amazed at how far all the teams got. It just goes to show that ALL the software represented is capable of big things, fast. It will be interesting to see where the state of the art is in another 5 years.
I have been a nay-sayer of "intelligent systems" over the past few years because they were still too clumbsy and too rigid, especially for creating Construction Documents (our bread-and-butter). That is beginning to change. The technology is finally getting beyond the "gee whiz" stage and into the realm of real tools. The downside is that some of the software LOOKS easy to use, but some of the other team members told me that their software is admittedly difficult to learn and operate. The results can be quite spectacular, however. Things are bound to improve.
Here's an interesting tidbit: I think (I can't remember for sure) that only 2 teams (DCAD and ACAD) used black screens. All the others used white screens. I still prefer to do real work on a black screen (easier to see), but the white screens LOOKED much better to me and to the audience. I'm convinced that the black screen is a bad idea for presentations, and specifically the Shootout, for a few reasons -- 1. It is too reminiscent of DOS, which many people remember in not-so-fond terms, 2. White looks cleaner and "fresher", and 3. White looks like paper, which is what we're all used to seeing in the end, especially laymen. Food for thought.
Here's another tidbit: AutoCAD Architectural Desktop fell flat on their face. They produced a massing model with some stick framing and a few windows. They fulfilled virtually none of the requirements of the competition and had practically nothing to present at the end. All this from a VERY expensive software package that is supposed to break the backs of its competitors. Not a chance. As far as I'm concerned the field is WIDE open to all the other architectural software out there, DataCAD included. Perhaps that was the most important outcome of the Shootout. Now is the time to strike. Arris and others are doing just that. And Mark Madura announced at the DBUG meeting last night (so I'm not telling any secrets here) that DCAD LLC saw the writing on the wall a long time ago and is moving in new "smart object" directions as well. If anyone can make user-friendly smart systems I think DCAD can.
Still makin' money with DCAD! Mike Smith
From: Wasch@aol.com
>I was proud of what the team did, and proud of the fact that we accomplished so much in so little time (a 74,000 s.f. multi-use facility
Certainly our congratulations to all. Well done. That's a helluv a lot work. Those of us who couldn't be there are itching to see some of the results
>I have been a nay-sayer of "intelligent systems" over the past few years operate. The results can be quite spectacular, however. Things are bound to improve.
I agree. There's no question in my mind that the next Volume in the history of DATACAD will be just that. However your commentary indicates that there is still a lot of viable life left in good old DataCAD. "Intelligent systems" may be out of the pervue of DataCAD 8.xxxx, but what I'll call "Semi-intelligent capability" is certainly well within its capability. An example of this is EZ-Tools. As rudimentary that it is, if given a higher priority in the scheme of things, it could be vastly improved to provide far greater capability than it does now.
> Here's another tidbit: AutoCAD Architectural Desktop fell flat on their face.
Golly Gee. Ain't that awfull. It sounds and looks like King Kong has stubbed his toe. What a shame.
Did Mark comment further about moving in the "smart object" direction. After all DC Viewer is the number one element in a three way triad of development and that's nearly two years old. If the handwriting is on the wall about the future is he backhandedly admitting to speeding up the time frame?
Wayne Schultz DraftCAD
PS: I'm taking off for a long weekend, but will be most anxious get back to see the full standings and results and comments from Geoff Langdon, Evan Shu and others.
PPS: I just finished browsing through the latest CADENCE rag. I wonder if they will have the guts to report on the show. If they do, expect a spin as good as anything we've seen that's come out of Washington,DC.
From : Jerry@laiserin.com
Congratulations on yet another successful event, and thanks for inviting me to be a part of it. Thank you, and your wife, again for all the hard work you did in producing this outstanding event and making it such a comfortable experience for the judges. As always, I look forward to the opportunity to collaborate with you on future programs.
From : "rtrinidad@lakeflato.com" <rtrinidad@lakeflato.com>
<<< Our office is having our own CAD shoot-out. Stay with the system we have or switch to the "ever popular" AutoCAD. We are growing at a fast rate and now have many new CAD operators who know AutoCAD. They comment that your Shoot-out doesn't mean anything because it doesn't take into consideration the learning curve of each software. They also comment that this contest doesn't represent a true "real world" situation and because of that AutoCAD would perform much better. Personally, I can't imagine a fairer contest. I want to stay with our current software (which happens to be ARRIS). What are other people saying about the criteria of the contest? >>>
Langdon responds :
A pressure I am all too familiar with....
The learning curve can indeed be significant. Since AutoCAD has one of the longest learning curves of any software in use in architecture, it should indeed be penalized in any evaluation. Described in PC Magazine as "THE most user-hostile software ever written", AutoCAD, with it's several month full learning time is a paragon of how not to design software. True, AutoCAD 14 has improved significantly in the ease of use area for long time users, but initial learning is still tough, since new users must learn the "old" ways too in order to understand AutoCAD's quirkyness (i.e. hitting "enter" to repeat a command will revert to the "old" way a command like Break or Stretch used to work).
The shortest learning curve for 2D drafting is with DataCAD, followed by MiniCAD, and then ArchiCAD. For 3D work that order would be reversed.
We are planning a offshoot competition specifically addressing this topic using the AIAS - the student chapter - where teams of students would be given shrinkwrapped boxes and be given a specific ammount of time to learn the software and do a project.
Concerning a "real world" situation. Unfortunatly, many in our field are lucky if they truly get to design anything, or even to practice in anything close to what we studied in architectural school, and in reality, though we don't publicize it, we spend a lot of time just cranking out mundane redundant construction documents. There are people, though, who really do design projects - just look around. One of the purposes of this competition is to celebrate the emergence of software that actually helps architectural design (not just the drafting). There is the hope, as well, that this new paradyme of software will eventually obviate the repetitive generation of 2D construction documents (i.e. either the software will generate those plans, sections, elevations automatically, or, even someday, the 3D model will go straight to construction), and the Design Shootout is meant as a facilitator to that eventual end.
The projects so far have been - a town meeting hall and visitor's center, a chapel and arts center, and an entertainment complex of restaurants - all projects that have been done by countless architects. Sure we are each lucky to get the chance to design a church, but architects do, and it is indeed real world architecture. The only difference is the 3 hour time period. (Remember, We all took a 12 hour design charrette in order to become licenced architects.) In that time we are not fooling ourselves that that is all it would take, nor do we wish to trivialize architectural processes that must take dozens of times longer, rather, to celebrate that design process by making it entertainment and educational we see what we can do in a more condensed period.
I am pleased that you couldn't "imagine a fairer contest" as it is our desire to be fair and to bring out information about the strengths and weaknesses of each of these packages. Each of the competing softwares has unique strengths and is appropriate for a certain kind of design office. To blindly adopt any of them, simply because you think other architects are using them, is an enormous mistake, and misses the opportunity of discovering an appropriate tool that can give your office a competitive atvantage.
From: AWilliams@mfi.com (Arnie Williams)
Subject: Great contest!
Just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed being part of the CAD Shootout. The teams were impressive and the quality of their work, given the complexity of the assignment, was a pleasure to behold. I did think Autodesk would fare better this year, but I do believe they learned much from the experience that will perhaps help them prepare for AEC. In any case, it was a blast. I'm looking forward to other such events. Thanks for hosting the judges and doing a superb job with the contest.
From: JAID <jaid@ozemail.com.au>
There has been much shootout talk:
In general it is always nice to have your team win.
If it does not it is necessary to take it on the chin and do one of the following:
1. Sort out what needs to be done to make it do so next time or to develop a program to ensure it does eventually.
2. Appreciate that any analysis must be subjective. A win is but accomplishment of certain objectives in certain eyes.
3. Remove yourself from the conflict.
Both 1. and 2. are appropriate here.
Not one person would have expected DataCAD to win. We all know there is work to be done, I think, none more than its developers. At the same time in the context of a company proceeding to a completely new version, these comparisons bear a wealth of potential fruit. Not just in the way various software may function but in the way various people perceive, use and value it.
The shootout must be and must remain subjective. To be otherwise would confine the realm. Results are achieved by virtue of choice in topic, choice in operators, strength of competition, variety in adjudicators and variety in the viewing public and the wider world of onlookers. If just one team member had a head ache like I had yesterday one could expect significant disadvantage in edge. The shootout is not unwieldy with multiple like teams and restricted specification. It is a simple and partial test of all on the day. Its organizers while attempting to maximize impartiality would make no excuse for that I am sure.
The outcome certainly would suit some and not others but that it represents a viable and applaudable outcome by many leaves it clear that there are elements of worth to be gleaned here. (Even if the many existing elements of worth are not thrown out with the bathwater.)
The participants while disappointed did show appreciation of this and there lies the strength for the next generation of software.
Regards Ian Johnson HOBART
From: ebiii@oreally.com (Ernest Burden III)
>Anyone out there have any catchy phrases for Datacad marketing? {inspired by Shootout results}
"Well, I'm done, how 'bout you? Oh, do you need a hand with that LISP coding?"
From: "Randal L. Rhodes" <rhodes@salisbury.net>
I am a loyal Datacad user (Since 1989 v3.1 in college). But it seems (So far ....) Datacad did not place well overall! Lets all hope the individual results are better. Waiting in anticipation of better news.
To The entire team representing DataCad and the Datacad company - Thank you for working your tails off to make it happen. The results above still do not change MY MIND - I love Datacad! Any chance that DATACAD WILL REALEASE THE DRAWINGS (Actual dc5 files and renderings) for download on web site so We the users can open files and learn from your experience.... how the 3d is set up, etc..... Probably no chance huh? The rendering sample of EMH house that comes with Datacad 8 for windows is great tutorial file.
From: "Scott B. Roberts" <scottr@dhc.net>
"DataCad - When it absolutly, possatively has to be finished on time"
Do you think the fedex folks will mind?
From: rick@datacad.com (Richard Morse)
Needless to say, the DataCAD team is not happy with the results from this year's CAD Shootout. Given our standing, any criticisms of the event might be perceived as sour grapes or a lame excuse for poor performance on our part. Instead, we will let our efforts speak for themselves, and I think any objective person will agree that something ran amiss in the judging. Several of our competitors also concurred that the DCAD team did not get a fair assessment.
I believe that the restructuring of the Shootout into a series of "vignettes" reduced the competition itself to a backdrop, and shifted the focus onto what the software purportedly *could* do instead of what was actually accomplished. Many teams even ran pre-recorded screen cams for the vignette interviews as well, which gave it the flavor of a canned demo. Complex models which ordinarily would take many, many minutes erupted on the screen in seconds, giving the impression of effortless creation. We performed live demos and did the work in real time. This probably hurt us, but it was honest.
The winning team did not complete many of the requirements, and to the best of my recollection did not produce an animation, a merged image or any photo realistic renderings. Instead, they ran an animation from another project commissioned by a private client. Hey, it worked...
Well, where I come from, you can't pin up for crit unless all the specified drawings are done, and you can't pull the permit unless you submit the required drawings. I have participated in many architectural competitions, and so much as submitting a board the wrong size is enough to get your entry rejected, no matter how brilliant it is. Skip the mandatory triple lutz in your skating at the Olympic games, and it will cost you, just ask Scott Hamilton. This reality of competitive sport and the architectural profession seemed to be suspended at the culmination of our three hours, and it is an insult to those who invested a tremendous amount of time and money to participate.
That said, I do not regret competing, and I am not bitter about the outcome. The facts are the facts, we'll present our work, and you be the judge.
I want to thank Mike Smith for doing an outstanding coaching job, and remaining level-headed throughout the grueling three and one half hours. It was also a pleasure to sit side by side with Mark Madura and jam on DataCAD. Miraculously, we did not kill each other, and remain friends despite speculation that we would be otherwise by mid term. I can honestly say that everyone gave top notch performance, and there is little I would have done differently. Even the software and machines performed flawlessly.
For those who didn't catch the design problem, we were assigned a 3-4 story entertainment complex plus amphitheater to be located on Pier 15 near South Street Seaport in New York City. The program included a restaurant, cyber cafe, brew pub, retail stores and a marina as well. Curiously, we were also required to incorporate a ship's wheel into the design as well.
Our strategy was to above all complete all of the design requirements, however minimally. To this end, floor plans remained schematic, created with blocker, and most of the time was invested in modeling and rendering to produce the required views. As the short three hours gives precious little time for *D*esign, we had to solve the problem with bold strokes, but still try to keep it interesting.
We started the competition with Mike and me blocking out the floor areas, and Mark modeling the site. Once the site was complete, I exported the model to Mark and he began rendering. Previously, we had established default files with layer names and materials already assigned to minimize time spent adjusting settings.
To solve the design problem, Mike suggested a linear scheme, which was obvious enough. This took the shape of a long bar-shaped building along the pier, with pedestrian circulation on all sides. To this bar we added the amphitheater towards the street end, its bulk stretching out into the water, and a tower-cum-lighthouse rotunda at the far end from the base of which radiated the marina docks. All this was roughed out on a piece of scratch paper in about 40 seconds.
I started the model with the building section, which I copped from Corbu's Maisons Jaoul, with a few variations. Two long bays separated by a narrower circulation corridor are spanned by shallowly arched beams. The same configuration was used along the spans in the opposite direction, producing a pleasing procession of arched bays along the entire length of the building. These openings were simply closed in with planes of glass. We opened up the center of the building to stairways and circulation. Finally, a copper barrel vaulted roof completed the roof line. I used the Sweep macro to quickly create the arched roof shape complete with cornice and integral gutters.=20
A false move along the way cost me ten minutes of precious time, as I mistakenly moved *AND COPIED* the entire building 4 inches in the z-direction. Yes, layer search was on too. Doh! (note to self: we have to do something about that And Copy drawing grenade.) After extricating myself from that blunder, we went on to model the rotunda. Again, Sweep was used. The end result producing a Caesar Pelli-like banality, but enough articulation to give us something to render.=20
By now, we are two plus hours into it and Mark is looking for the final export so he can produce the animation. To fill the time, he starts on the ship's wheel, and produces a rendering of our building super-imposed over a site photo. They don't quite line up, but it is good enough.
Back at the building, we use Sweep yet again to create the amphitheater, and a mesh surf for the Frei Otto roof tribute over it.
The coup de grace for me was the "what to do about the ship's wheel" dilemma. The solution? With apologies to Claes Oldenberg, we enlarge it to two stories in height and sink it 2/3 of the way into the bay. The rising and falling of the tides produces a dynamic sculpture expressing man's struggle to conquer the sea. ;-> No, really...
Mark rattles off the 12 perspectives, Mike and I use HLR to produce the last elevations and sections and we are done with a few minutes to spare. Unfortunately, the break in the roof line and a few other design elements we hoped to complete go undone, but we have satisfied all the required elements as we set out to do.=20
Pictures at eleven, or on our web site eventually, at least.
Thanks for the support of the DBUG group. It was fun!
From: Charlie White <cnwhite@arriscad.com>
Congratulations to all 10 teams competing in this year,s "Architectural Cup.
Every team did very well. It is an honor each year to join a group of people that are the very best in the world at using the "state of the art in Architectural CADD.
Geoff, the competition was extraordinary. Thank you for all your hard work and passion in promoting and organizing this event. You have done an excellent job in its creation and evolution. I agree with Robert Trinidad from Lake Flato Architects in San Antonio. His posting states that "he could not imagine a fairer competition. Job well done.
It was apparent that all of the competing software solutions have come a long way in the last 2 years as true design tools. It was also obvious at this year,s competition that the "Architectural Cup is being taken very seriously by all the competing software developers. I think that this is a unique forum for evaluation and a meaningful dialog about the future of Architectural CADD. ( Yes, the second D is very important in CADD.)
As leader of the ARRIS team and one of the Trustees of the Cup, I think it is important that we keep the "Architectural Cup a design-oriented competition. This focus will certainly result in concentration by the industry on better solutions toward this end.
The "Architectural Cup exposes the incredible possibilities of "state of the art technology when matched with experienced people. It is unfortunate that most of the architectural profession is far from "state of the art. Most are still using the computer as though it where simply a tool for drawing lines and placing text on a piece of paper.
They have not caught on to the enormous gains in truly networking and automating their entire construction documentation process. Beyond these most basic issues lies the world of 3D design simulation on the computer. It is an incredible tool for exploring and creating architecture. The vast majority of the firms haven,t evolved to this level yet. It is a shame, because it is possible for everyone to use this technology.
The "Architectural Cup should always point to the future while firmly establishing the content of the competition in "real world conditions. I am not sure that our market is aware of how fast the sand is shifting beneath our feet right now. Over the past 6 months hardware capabilities and cost reduction has progressed at an unprecedented pace. Software development has followed right behind. The capabilities and value offered to the architectural customer is astounding. Almost every firm and organization needs to move to the next level. How will it be accomplished?
We will see. It is an exciting time. It is a wonderful time to be an architect.
Charlie White
From: "Markus H. Geisler" <mhg@mhgeisler.com>
As the Owner and Principal of an Architectural Office I follow the shootout results with great interest each year, because I need to be very competitive and efficient,(who doesn't?). Following the shootout is one way to stay on top of where CAD is headed. I'm very appreciative of the time and expense each Company and team goes thru to participate, it really is incredible.
However, the most important thing to my own business survival is bottom-line. This means cash-flow, and spending as little as possible for the greatest return; the word "frugal" comes to mind. To most small offices performance vs. price is critical, (including the learning curve - which also equates to speed). I do only commercial work, so residentially specific software is no help to me. But based on the prices I have seen for the software demonstrated in the shootout, as well as the short learning curves commented upon, I would have to place Minicad and Datacad at the top of the heap instead of the actual winners.
Surely price-performance should be a heavily weighted factor in the standings? Frankly, I'd give major negative points to any software over $1000. Not only can I oufit the whole office with software for less than one package of the "winners", but I could buy two to three software and hardware "stations" for less than one package of the "winners". I've used AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, DataCAD and others over the years, (failed at Arris), so I think I know wereof I speak. Based on the fulfillment of the shootout requirements there appears to be no huge performance gaps between the high priced CAD and the right priced CAD. It's all well and good to note that Arris, ArchiCAD and ArchitechPC won the overall competition... but I would never, ever, buy them because of cost and learning curve. Since the vast majority of Architectural Offices in the U.S. have 10 or fewer persons (like mine)it would seem a lot of my fellow Architects might agree.
Langdon responds :
I think you might be remembering prices of some of these packages from years ago, as a number of them have changed dramatically. Also note that the price of ARRIS listed below includes a Pentium computer and monitor as well. In the cases of AllPlan and ArchiCAD second and third copies of the software drop by as much as $1000, and most of the others do have volume discounts.
AllPlan $4995 / ArchiCAD $3995 / ArchiTECH.PC and SoftCAD 3D $2800 / Arris $3995 / AutoCAD ArchitecturalDesktop $5200 / BuildersCAD $1995 / DataCAD $695 / DenebaCAD $499 / MicroStation TriForma $4695 / MiniCADVectorWorks $ 900
From: Lisa Oldham <loldham@architects.org>
I understand the Shoot-out was well attended and everyone was having such a good time that it ran way past the scheduled end!
Congratulations and thanks for making it, once again, a true Build Boston highlight.
Lisa H. Oldham Director of Communications Boston Society of Architects
From: Grace Mann <grace_mann@yahoo.com>
AutoCAD = tired; Ease of use = wired My apologies to Wired magazine for stealing their "tired/wired" schtick, but it is germaine here. I was trained here in Canada to use AutoCAD in the architectural arena, and while working in several AutoCAD offices, began to wonder why perspectives, renderings and flythroughs were never done in-house. I began to realize that practical, 3D modeling for architecture in AutoCAD was going to be too labour intensive to be practical. Then I thought that there must be a better choice than AutoCAD, and after some searching found this site.
I believe that the future of CAD in architecture is 3D, and software that doesn't require the sale of one's soul to learn how to use it. I write LISP routines, custom menus and so on - and I still say unequivocally that AutoCAD is a blight on the architectural CAD landscape. It has its applications and many merits, but not here. Even with Architectural Desktop, AutoCAD is outclassed by many other platforms.
Clients want to see their designs rendered in 3D, and architects don't want be slow progress by having to create renderings every time the building changes so the client can see them. The solution: easy, fast + integrated 2D/3D, and the ability to render easily. After six months' research, I am choosing MiniCAD/VectorWorks for our Wintel office; it's not as full featured as say, ArchiCAD, but for a firm our size (3 architects, two techs) it's an amazing platform. AutoCAD will be nothing but an unhappy memory! Thanks, Geoffrey for this site; it catalyzed our selection process.
One thing that caught my attention was the "psychological profile" of offices using different platforms (see the reviews on this site); AutoCAD offices were not "happy offices". It's true: ***AUTOCAD CAUSES STRESS.*** That's very important to note! And what got me about MiniCAD is that they have the most pleasant, courteous, helpful user group (at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/minicad-l.html) of ALL the platforms I've researched! Makes a Canadian feel right at home. It even has a white background to remind us of all the snow... P.S.: my mother says that the authors posted on this site need spelling and/or grammar lessons!
From: scott sayre <sgsayre@earthlink.net>
After reading through the (partially uploaded) results of this year's event, I have the following comments:
1. I've looked through the site, and can't find a list of the hardware used by the competitors. Am I looking in the wrong spot, or hasn't this uploaded yet? For example, I saw that Apple was a sponsor, so I would be interested to know which teams were using their equipment. Please include a list of the equipment (by team) with the cost. It could be significant to compare the contest results against the cost of the systems.
2. I noticed that a number of the people credited with setting up the event were also team members. While this does not appear to have affected the outcome, some people out there with a conspiratorial bent might suspect collusion. It might be better to keep organizers, judges, and participants in distinctly separate groups next time.
Overall, this is a wonderful event, and you should be congratulated for putting it on. The architectural community needs this kind of head-to-head demonstration of software to cut through the promotional nonsensense. After three years, it's becoming clear which software really perform (i.e.: AllPlan, Arris, ArchiCad, MicroStation, MiniCad) and which don't (AutoCad). I'm looking forward to attending next year in L.A.
Langdon responds :
We will post a list of what hardware was used on this site after the rest of the results are up. We did not have a final list on this until the actual competition, and each Team had to tell us what they were using (and its cost) during their final presentations. Cost Effectiveness is a category in the results, and the cost is reflected in this category -- notice, though that it is not simply an ordering of cheapest to most expensive, but reflects the more intangible and important concept of value. The credits to Apple, Adobe, and Netscape in the credits are a touch of humor, as the primary way all of this was set up was via the web site - thus, without my rock-solid trusty PowerMacintosh and PageMill software there would not have been a Design Shootout. The MiniCAD, DenebaCAD, and ArchiCAD Teams all used at least one PowerMacintosh.
In the credits are references to everyone who had input into ideas that helped form the event and the venue. Additionally, as per the Deed of Gift of the Architectural CADD Cup, the Trustees (by definition the past winners of the Cup) must help make sure the next competition is good and fair. Where there needs to be seperation - i.e. between the people formulating the potential design problem/site and the actual competitors - there certainly was the needed separation. Rest assured that the NY Pier 15 Entertainment Complex surprised all who were there save two of the Design Shootout Staff.
From: Michael Risso <info@softcad.com>
The Best format yet!
Congratulations Geoffrey this years format made for the greatest challenge yet!
Congratulations to Arris in the best overall category.
I was part of the SoftCAD Team which consisted of :
Michael Risso SoftCAD spokesperson (myself)
Guy Moore Architect
Tomek Biernacki Modeling and rendering
Heidi Lambert Understudy
The addition of the vignette interviews helped a great deal in attempting to differentiate between the different software applications.
The design challenge caught everybody by surprise!! We were all prepared to generate a 3D terrain, instead we had to completely change our game plan. This element of surprise is very important, I hope you continue with this format combined with the vignette interviews. My only critique was addition of the 8th vignette into the final presentation, this added unnecessary confusion. In fairness to you all of teams agreed to this the day before, we know about hindsight.
Can you tell us anything about the shootout in AEC?
From: cjuergens@juno.com (Curt C Juergens)
I, for one, would like to congratulate the DCAD team of Mark Madura, Rick Morse, and Mike Smith for a great job and dedication beyond the call of duty. I remember all too well how much time, concentration and skill is required to pull off a design charrette like this from when I took the A.R.E. exam 12 years ago.
The Shootout judging reminds me of how many people vote now-a-days. The tendency seems to be for people to vote for the one they THINK will win (hoping to be associated with the winning team) rather than voting for the best qualified. Would it be possible to get Prof. Langdon to explain to the forum what the judging criteria was and how the teams that did not finish the required elements got their scores?
Hopefully the rest of the story will get out on the website soon, showing how all of the teams faired against each other on the required elements.
Curt Juergens, AIA, P.E. Midwest Design Group Lake St. Louis, MO
From: David Collins <dcollins@hol.gr>
>How did Archicad do?
So far, they've only posted the results for Best Overall Architectural Software:
ArchiCAD did GOOD: 2nd place after (outrageously-expensive-with zillions-of-required-Add-ons) Arris, with MiniCAD down to fifth place where they belong....
Congratulations to David Marlatt, Bradley Skaggs, Tom Simmons, Jeff Olken and Tamas Hajas for a job well done! David Collins
From: dthede@aecsolutions.com
>after (outrageously-expensive-with zillions-of-required-Add-ons) Arris
Unfortunately, according to the Arris team, the complete Arris package including computer, was $4,995. (It was the system they advertised on the back of the Shootout Program.) Rocket scientists, extra. Didrik
From: Alancarrie@aol.com
Rick (and Mark, since I'm cc'ing him) -
First of all, congrats on even participating! It's enough that I had to endure the architect's exam twice before I passed my 12 hour hell, let alone having to do it every year (as you've done for the past 3 years!!!!) !!!!
Second, I am proud of the fact that my software OF CHOICE is DataCAD. A very wise (young) man of 16 once schooled me on the facts of life. I am adopted - my "adopted" parents (but as far as I'm concerned, my REAL parents) told me that at age 8. When I was 11 years old, I was at Boy Scout camp and feeling low (felt my parents didn't love me). When I told him that I was adopted, he told me that he was too. Then (without any pride or one-upsmanship) he told me, "Just remember that our parents CHOSE US - the "natural" kids' parents didn't have a choice!"
The moral to this is that regardless of the Shoot-Out's standings, ALL OF US have chosen DataCAD as our preferred platform. For all of the gripes and moans, NONE OF US would choose to convert to any other program for outright production, ease of use, and value for the dollar! For us (and hopefully those who saw your efforts) DataCAD won the Shoot-Out!!! Regards, Alan T. Hendry Architect Aromas, California
From: pellett <pellett@atlantic.net>
Wow
I just looked over the partial load of shoot out graphics on the web. At this time only ArchiCAD, ArchiTECH.PC, AutoCAD and DataCAD were available. My first impression is that the first two listed programs had a superior presentation that had a feel of the artist rendering. They also read as more 'designed'. The architect on the team got his/her design across.
DataCAD seemed to be the most complete which goes along with several other comments. The graphics were OK, but lacked some of the tricks that the others used such as transparent glass (DataCAD's Velocity did this years ago), a close up that showed a section concept and the hand rendered feel.
DataCAD had the best water surface but it seemed detracting to me.
AutoCAD looked like a photograph of a kid's builder blocks.
Here is a suggestion: Have still another contest on the web with the final graphics. Let us make our judgment. You could post the graphics anonymously and have us score the images. This would eliminate the bias that may come from watching the competition. The graphics could then be identified after this additional category for web success. Michael Pellett, Architect 5111 NW 4th Place Gainesville, FL 32607-2109
Langdon responds :
We do plan a Web vote as soon as we can establish a fair protocol. In the meantime, you are looking at it. It is better to have people's real comments than potentially arbitrary numbers anyway. It is also interesting in that the competition sort of is still going on, as particular factions seem to be wanting to put their particular spin on the results before Jerry, Evan, Arnie, and I write up our analysis.
From: LunaGroup@aol.com
Certainly our congratulations to all. Well done. That's a helluv a lot work.
Those of us who couldn't be there are itching to see some of the results
I was there and agree heartily that the DataCAD team did us proud. The general level of the compitition has been raised quite a bit even since last year's Shootout. I'll comment more in a moment...
The two teams using beta versions were (MiniCAD) Vector Works (a new name and a new product) and Deneba. Deneba is an upstart -- as of last year they had only been shipping a Mac version for a month or two, and this year they now have a Windows version, but they also chose to use a beta of their next version in the competition. Both teams paid for their choice with more than one crash each, and Deneba has very little output to show, hence their last place in the overall rating. It is ironic that DataCAD was the only team to complete ALL the required elements and while they had siginificantly more points than Deneba, it was still only enough for 9th (out of the 10 teams).
As for why they were allowed to use betas, we'll have to ask Mr. Langdon. I don't have any particular problem with it personally, because ALL software has some bugs, as we all know -- too well! When a company releases a "final" version, they have made a choice -- to get the thing to their users/new buyers, and live with the problems and fix 'em as they go. So, to use a beta *themselves* in a compitition, is a similar choice for them to make, as far as I can see.
I would put things this way: I think DataCAD is quite "smart" about things 2D. What I think we will see in the future, is to have this same "smarts" applied to the whole picture -- 3D is the ultimate "co-ordinator" of what we all do -- build real buildings. Before it can be made to work in a real building, why not see if it can work in a virtual one?
With the right CAD tool, using "smart" 3D models and their "smart" 2D representations (i.e. drawings) that were more or less *self coordinating* would *save* lots and lots of time in the CD process. By "smart" 3D models, I mean modeling that allows us as folks who already know how to build buildings, to be able to do just that, in the computer, in terms that we already know and understand. We will probably still need to be "CAD-jockeys" to a certain extent, but why should we *need* know about the inner workings of 3D CAD, when the power of the database can let us build 3D models with things that "behave" just like their real-world counterparts? The DataCAD we have now, does this for us in the 2D realm. What I hope to see in the future is a DataCAD that does this in a "integrated" way between 3D and the 2D working drawings we need to produce to build a building.
<< >Here's an interesting tidbit: I think (I can't remember for sure) that only 2 teams (DCAD and ACAD) used black screens. All the others used white screens.>>
You know, Mike, I almost said something to you guys -- you could've switched at least one of your machines part way through, and people might have noticed. I really thought the graphics that Architectural Desktop showed us (very similar graphics to AutoCAD) were bad as a presentation, and while DataCAD's screens showed up a bit better (brighter lines), I would've prefered a white background. I bet it would've helped emphasize the jump to Windows, and this would've helped shake the creaky olde fashioned impression that some people have of DataCAD. I noticed you guys used a red top bar on your Windows -- this served to set you apart visually, which helped a lot, given the difficulty keeping track of who you were seeing on that big screen! (For those of you who were not there, I was "pushing the buttons" on the video switcher for the last part of the competition. It is always tough to keep track of which one is which!)
> Here's another tidbit: AutoCAD Architectural Desktop fell flat on their face.
I would be a little kinder, but not much: they did get more done than last year. And as Geoff put it:"Gee, this isn't your father's AutoCAD!" They are showing *some* new-found flexibilty, but they are still clunky. They were caught out without a *floor plan* and the best they could do was to try and cut one right there in the final presentation -- I'm not sure if they actually were sucessful! If it was a easy as they said it was, why didn't they have one ready? To be fair, they only had 8 weeks to learn the thing -- to put it another way -- they were barely past the beta stage. Maybe they don't have many bugs of the type we normally think of, but who knows?
Okay, now for my unsolicited opinions of the Designers 3D CADD Shootout:
I thought the format was a lot better this year, because most of the "hard sell" monologues were suppressed by the "Vignettes" (my, I've had to refer to my dictionary a lot for this post!). The drawback was, though, that we we did not get enough formal glimpses of the design process until it was all over. We needed more of the design process to get a better idea of the progress folks were making.
The design problem was a very large entertainment complex on a pier in Manhattan, New York City. This served to force more schematic design, though i think, amazingly, more teams got farther along than did last year. The design solutions were much more similar -- this had a lot to do with the "site's" restraints, and with the huge program, me thinks.
Arris (and Builders CADD, by extension) have the most unique interface, and I think it is their achilles heel. Yuk! While their results were impressive, I would not really care to try and learn their interface. IMHO, it is the has worst interface; at least it is the most confusing and the most unusual, and the most cluttered. (And we were upset when we lost a few pixels of drawing window -- though it's all come back, as of 8.05.01!) Arris is basically $4,000, though they will throw in a capable computer for another $1000. I think they won the competition with their "smart" elevation keys and section keys. On the working drawings they showed (from another completed project) you click on the elevation key on a floor plan -- and it brings up the elevation drawing! Click on the building section key on the elevation drawing - -- an bingo -- you now have the building section drawing on the screen! Smart!
ArchiCAD was pretty close to Arris is "smartness" and didn't seem to force users to suffer the run-away icons/text buttons. It is also an expensive program. Excellent network collaboration, too, though great strides have been made by several programs. This area, is the other way that DataCAD could improve. Collaboration happens with even just two people work on a project! Now, if the automatic coordination using a 3D model I alluded to above, could work over a network, then we would be talking GREAT!
Microstation TriForma strikes me as (still) being in that "CAD-jockey" stage. Smart is some ways, but less good at following through the whole process. They used canned presentations for the vignettes, and really failed to reproduce part of a process, when asked to do so (by Evan Shu, as it happens!) Also, they were running on dual-processor machines, and "didn't know" the price of them, because they were donated by IBM for this competition. One of their stations and software package cost nearly double BOTH of DataCAD's!
All Plan was overtaken this year, I think. Arris (though it lacks an integrated renderer, is bundled with Lightscape) and ArchiCAD have caught up, if not overtaken it, in terms of "completeness" and "smartness". And All Plan is second only to Archtectural Desktop in price, if I'm not mistaken.
MiniCAD is now called Vector Works, though they do put MiniCAD on the logo in smaller print to help with recognition. Their design wasn't as tight as the one they did last year, and I think they got knocked down a bit for using a beta version. Some big improvements in rendering, networkability, space planning, etc. I also think they suffer from a "non-architectural" look to their on-screen graphics. Having a Mac version is cool, too -- they started on the Macintosh.
Deneba's program seemed "stuck" -- no visible improvements over last year, and they lacked any design focus. Builder's CADD seems too narrowly focused to be really useful. ArchitechPC/SoftCAD suffers from the dichotomy of two programs, though they are fairly well linked, and they have good solid modelling. Archtectural Desktop I've already commented on: still very expensive and too clunky, and questionable file compatibilty -- though they laughed at my question!
I've gone on too long, but I'll say this: we ALL need to keep abreast of the IAI (International Alliance for Interoperability -- whew, what a mouthful!), as well as the Open DWG Alliance, and the AIA's CAD standards (talk to Michael Tardif on this). Sincerely, Neil Blanchard Really, I do sleep. :-)
P.S. I just realized after reading Rick Morse's post (thanks for the insider's view!) that i had not commented directly about DataCAD! Suffice it to say, I too was very surprised at DataCAD's placement in the overall rating. They certainly deserved better -- I know I placed them a lot higher on my ballot! My guess is the added weight that the audience vote got, and because we were not held to any strict guidelines, like the jury members were! Maybe a rebalancing is in order? I know, I know, we all asked for a bigger vote, but we are all learning more as we go, too.
From: "Stephen Blatt Architects" <sbarch@gwi.net>
After reading the comments of Rick Morse, Mike Smith, Neil Blanchard, and others on the CAD Shootout, I want to add my own.
First, a couple of caveats:
1. I have always had problems with the format of the shootout - I think that the focus on 3D and the narrowly complex requirements mean that the relevance of the competition to everyday CAD use is pretty minimal. That said, the advertizing value of a good showing is obviously important and the "feel good" factor for users and vendors of products that do well are undeniable.
2. I saw only the final 2 hours of the Shootout - only the final presentation by each team.
Given those filtering factors, my reaction to the results was one of astonishment. While the DataCAD team's presentation lacked the flash of some aspects of some of the other teams, they did present every required element of the competition. As others have indicated, no other team accomplished this. As Rick pointed out, the DataCAD team elected to keep their design simple in an effort to meet the goal of completing all required elements; the relative simplicity of their design did not show well compared with most of the other designs. While this simplicity helped them to complete the required elements, it worked against them in the final voting.
Many of the other software packages have features that we DataCAD users have asked for/been promised for years. The power of these features was put to good use in many of the presentations (real-time rendered fly-throughs are very impressive).
My impression at the end of the presentations was that the DataCAD team had done a very creditable job. I felt that, while they had used a very simple design solution, they had very competently fulfilled the requirements of the competition. I was embarassed for at least three of the other teams, whose presentations I felt were so weak as to be laughable were it not for the obvious sincerity of the team memebers. I think that the placement of Arris, ArchiCad, TriForma, and AllPlan at the top of the competition was basically correct. All four of these packages have terrific features for 3D design, imaging, and presentation and their teams did a good job of showing them off. I was especially impressed with Ivan B.'s work with AllPlan - a nice design, well presented generated from software with an impossible interface.
When the final tally was presented, I was shocked to see DataCAD ranked 9th out of 10. I fully expected that it would have been 5th. To my mind, the workmanlike competence of DataCAD far outshown the (limited) flash of 4 of the competitors that placed ahead of it.
I can only hope that, when the categorized votes are tallied, DataCAD will show better and that users and the LLC will find areas in which to be (justifiably) proud.
In conclusion, I have to say that I am left with even stronger feelings that the basic design of this competition is flawed. The design problem was overly complex for the time available. The "vignettes" were used for commercials which seemingly swayed the voters. The list of required elements was ignored by most of the competitors without penalty. Since this competition has taken on a degree of some importance in the industry, I suggest that its administration needs to get a bit more professional. Philip Hart Stephen Blatt Architects
From: MSrebnik@aol.com
Just for the 'MiniCAD' team was actually running 'VectorWorks' which is the next generation of MiniCAD soon to be released. Hence some of the problems they had this year in competing. Not everyone on the team was that familiar with the new program. So considering that, they did pretty good.
The information above comes from postings on the MiniCAD list which I still receive. I am an ArchiCAD newbie trying to get up to speed on ArchiCAD so haven't cut the cord yet with MiniCAD. Having used both programs now, I think many ArchiCAD users would be surprised at how powerful, complete out of the box, and easy to use MiniCAD is, especially for the price (and no dongles!).
My summary so far of the two programs is that ArchiCAD is a bit ahead in the 3D dept.(roof tool, curved walls), parametric library/ interface and seems weak in the 2D dept compared to MiniCAD. I have been surprised that ArchiCAD doesn't have certain basic 2D tools, an object info box like MiniCAD (where you can click on an object and get all of its info (Size, area, location, name, attached database info, etc) in one small window onscreen.
I recognize my comparisons are limited since I've used MiniCAD for several years and ArchiCAD for about 2 months. I'm sure as I use ArchiCAD more I'll discover more of its capabilities. Mark Srebnik Architect AIA Los Altos, California
From: Ehdkd@aol.com
First of all Congratulations to the DataCad team for a job well done!!!!!
As a former user of both Autocad and Archicad I prefer Datacad hands down. For production and working drawings datacad is far easier to use to get "quality output" without sacrificing "hand quality" in drawings with reguard to text lineweights and multi-layout is tops for creating multi-scaled sheets. Should we be calling this the 3-d Cad shootout??
Visual presentions are great but are not a normal part of Cad Architectural work. (Though it would be nice to alter settings of an object by clicking on it like Archicad, smart fill hatches would also be nice.) Would separating scoring for required elements and artistic expression create a more level scoring field? What would the standings look like if the scoring criteria were altered to reflect this?
By the way I too prefer the black screen but have separate color palettes saved to show clients quick shades. Karen A'Zary Deasy E.H. Danson Associates
From: "Dick Reinholt" <reinholt@ic.net>
I for one, would like to thank all three members of the shootout team. I know you gave it your best. In addition, I would like to thank Neil, Mike and others for there comments. I found them very interesting. I intent to be in Boston next year for the shootout. The problem I have is that the bottom line for those of us that were not in attendance is that our beloved DataCAD finished eight out of nine. To others who do not know about DataCAD, it's a loser. Needless to say this is tough on DataCAD LLC. I am very anxious to hear what Prof. Langton has to say. I would very much like to see DataCAD LLC thrive in the CAD market, and even provide innovative leadership in the CAD market. It does not sound like the shootout is a good comparison vehicle unless the true rules are followed.
Langdon responds :
The 1999 Designers 3D CAD Shootout for Architectural CADD Systems will be in LosAngeles on May 27th (not in Boston in November). Only in one category, the overall one that determines the winner of the Architectural CADD Cup, was DataCAD eighth out of ten. They did better in a number of other categories, and won an Architectural CADD Award in the Easiest to Use category.
As far as Teams "completing" and following rules, about which a lot of innaccurate statements have been made in the DataCAD Forum - The rules are indeed written and there are independant objective overseeers. The commission was to do only conceptual design for the building and schematic design of just the top two floors - a commission which EVERY Team exceeded. As for being "finished", such a state is a nebulous concept when speaking of conceptual design. A Team that does not produce a required drawing is/was indeed "penalized" by getting fewer points by the jury and audience. Every Jury member and every audience member had a checklist for the required items, and, looking over the individual scores, Teams missing particular drawings/models/VRMLs and so on definitely were scored zeros and 1's in those categories. As for Teams breaking the no-beta software rule, VectorWorks had prior permission to use the software they did, as they were to have (and they did) have shrinkwrapped official boxes of VectorWorks to sell right there at Build Boston98 (which they did) and the term "beta" in their case was somewhat of a misstatement. Deneba, on the otherhand, surprised us and themselves with their beta version and paid heavy penalties for it. Thus, the persistant rumour that rules were not followed or enforced is inaccurate. I also do not look at any of the ten design softwares in the competition as "losers" as all ten represent the ten very best in a field of some 47 different CADD programs in use by architects, and I still recommend every one of those ten to design firms for whom they are appropriate.
From: Chris Walsh <redrover@tiac.net>
I was at the Cad shoot out and have several comments because I too was suprised at the standings at first, but in reflection, completely understand how it could happen.
First, I was thrilled to see the head men of DC LLC actually PARTICIPATING in the shootout: Tubular, Fab & Way Cool... To work in the spotlight under those constraints shows faith in the product and will help Dcad remember what it needed to help US in our work day- Thanks Guys, good job!
Second, (the reverse side of #1) Any competion with architecture as its product (particularily if voted on by architects) is going to be judged on its ARCHITECTURE and NOT how it GOT there. That should have been obvious in the set up of the competion rules and it is not worth whining about. This comes under the heading of TACTICAL ERROR. Other teams seemed to have much "zootier" designs and larger contingents of fans/users even if they did not have the required drawings. ERGO they blew by Dcad in the voting. Mark admitted to us at the Dbug meeting that they chose a banal design because they wanted to have the time to finish all the requirements- OOPS- wrong group- that is the decision to make in the DRAFTSMENS competion.
The fact that we use a good product that is getting better, that the company seems really dedicated to standing up for it in public, and that it has a world wide following that can't necessarily get to the shoot out ARE good things. .. yes?
So... How much is riding on these bragging rights? Should Dcad have Frank Gehry on next year's team? Should discounts or something be available for Dcad users to go to the shoot out (it does cost $ to get in); seems unfair in a way, seems like it is turning a fun, casual competion into something else but... in the competion for market share, important for all of us that have invested time and $ in DCAD by being users, this IS important.
Don't let Dcad become the Betamax of CAD programs... Get a TACTICIAN, read Michaevilli and "the Book of 5 Rings", study Bill Gates, whatever, learn the RIGHT lessons from this competion and don't get caught flat footed next year. with respect (truely) Chris Walsh, AIA Chris Walsh & Company, Architects Framingham, MA
From: "James Horecka, AIA" <jhorecka@pe.net>
As many of you know, I am a So Cal denizen, so I did not make it to the Shootout.
I purchased the videos for 1996 and 1997 from Langdon last year. From these and a wealth other information I put together a multi-media mini-seminar covering the shootout which I presented to the Inland California Chapter of the American Institute of Architects in Feb. '98. I put a lot of work into that puppy, and became pretty familiar with the event. (See Cheap Tricks of April 98).
As soon as this year's videos are ready, I'll likely purchase them from Architectural CADD again. I'll hold off on comments until I've had a chance to see for myself.
These videos, by the way, are certainly informative, and I would recommend them to those interested. Understand that they are "without plot" and therefore your family and friends may think you are nuts for watching them. But from them you will gain some new insight.
I think I understand a little bit of what goes into preparing for and actually competing in the event, and have an inkling of what it takes to coordinate it all. I have the greatest respect for all those who participated, not just our favorite DataCAD superheroes, but the "other guys" as well. Thanks to Prof. Langdon and all the other committed people who made it all happen yet again. James E. Horecka, AIA ARCHITECT 32902 Haddock Street Winchester, California 92596
From: David Marlatt <dmarlatt@graphisoft.com>
I want to thank my ArchiCAD teammates - Bradley Skaggs and Tom Simmons - and Geoff Langdon for another job well done this year. The design and vignettes were well conceived to put all of the teams through their paces with challenges that were relevant to practicing architects.
Congratulations also to Arris for winning back the Cup and to all of our colleagues/competitors for generally moving the bar of architectural CAD ever higher. David Marlatt, AIA
From: Glenbassoc@aol.com
Is it me or is this forum the place where Datacad whines. We (Proud to be Arris Users) won, accept it, learn from it. Sigma design and the Arris community have a lot to be proud of, 2 out of 3, and the third loss due to equipment failures more so than software problems. I hope, and feel confident that, Sigma Design and the Arris community are looking at this contest as a means to plan their future. This competition is by no means and end, as at seems from the amount of whining that's going on. To Sigma I say well done, but there is lots of work ahead. I hope they learn from the categories they did not do well in.
Someone said that ARRIS is expensive and has some many add-ons. Wrong on both counts, ARRIS is lower in price than several other packages, and delivers a hell of a lot more than most. Many packages today are just beginning to do things that ARRIS has been doing for years. Arris is a unified 'Suite' of applications that does nothing other than Design and manage buildings. It is not a generic, want to do all, not for all, Autocad.
As for the complicated interface, unfortunately that person obviously hasn't spent 5 minutes in front of an ARRIS screen too see the logical organization behind it. Some people think that if an application doesn't look like Bill Gates is complicated. Where architects, designers, if all of our sites and buildings looked the same, I guess there would be little to learn.
Unfortunately I wasn't at the shoot out, but I have used and continue to use ARRIS, autocad, microstation. Autocad, and microstation only when a client insists that the work actually be done in that application. Otherwise ARRIS, ARRIS, ARRIS.
I build it in 3D, then cut and slice for details and sections. If you still see Architectural Cadd as a speedy way of drafting then continue to use 'autocad, minicad, and what ever else. When you are ready to design 3D for a 3D world, try a real Total Cad Solution designed by architects for architects, the winner by majority vote........ARRIS. Just another satisfied ARRIS user. Glen
From: Robert Steinmetz <rob@steinmetznet.com>
A number of comments focus on the cost of the CAD software. As an Architect and firm owner it is easy to justify $4000.00 for a program which will last 2 years, if it saves more than about 30 hours per year or 2.5 hours a month. Of course if it cost $500 it's better, provided performance is the same. As a buisness man the cost of software is not as significant as what it can do for my buisness. As an Architect I want my staff to have the best tools availible.
I think the CADD Shootout is important in demonstrating the current state of the art in a forum where marketing hype is minimized. Robert Steinmetz, AIA Principal Steinmetz & Associates
From: Andy Houghton <andy.houghton@Hitchcock.ORG>
--quoted from an earlier post:--Arris (and Builders CADD, by extension) have the most unique interface, and I think it is their achilles heel. Yuk! While their --end of quote--
It's all what you're used to. I find the ARRIS GUI fairly straight forward. Some of that real estate is devoted to user customization, which incidentally, I have trouble trying to find commands I really need to put there ! 16 of your most used commands can be accessed through a simple mouse drag regardless of where the cursor is. Yielding a lot of "heads-up" drafting. Hope I didn't give away a trade secret ;^>
I agree... ARRIS could benefit from a DataCAD-like interface customization option. ARRIS7/DataCAD8 user, Andy Houghton
From: "Donal Fagan" <DLFagan@hayeslarge.com>
I manage a 120 person WAN with fifty-one copies of Arris, six of Lightscape, six of Softdesk Civil, five of Form-Z, three of Softdesk Architectural, two of RAMFrame and two of Microstation.
I prefer Arris, and I'm glad they won, but most of these packages work acceptably in an office atmosphere where there is a fast LAN or WAN and someone to manage shared resources and to troubleshoot problems. (Even with nine grand of software and twice as much RAM as anyone else, the Softdesk Civil people still spend a lot of time with ink and mylar.)
Someone questioned whether a *3D* Cadd Shootout was a fair test. Even though many technical draughtsmen are stuck in 2D line drawing mode, I think testing 3D capabilities is forward-looking and useful. Whether for design studies, client approval or marketing, we are increasingly called upon to present three dimensional representations of our work.
I think there are two growing external demands on cadd packages that your test doesn't yet reflect, but which you may consider for future Shootouts:
1) Our clients are starting to use cadd for facilities management. As of right now, some are just collecting dxf files with little thought to future use. Others dictate what cadd format we deliver, dwg or dgn. The more intransigent clients dictate what cadd package we actually run to do the work. Some even want immediate access to our cadd files over the web.
2) Our designers are starting to telecommute. Sometimes they have a machine, sometimes we set one up for them, and sometimes we give them a notebook. Usually, they dial in for their e-mail and ferry their project data around on Zip or Jaz cartridges.
Imagine how simple this teledraughting would be if DXF, or an independent format, was as stable as ASCII and if different cadd packages could be as interoperable as SMTP e-mail clients.
In a sentence, I think reliable translation and good coordination with remote access collaborators would be good capabilities to test in the next 3D Cadd Shootout. Donal Fagan Director of Computer Services Hayes Large Architects
From: "ARTHUR R. COGSWELL" <Arthur_Cogswell@compuserve.com>
Many thanks to you for your coordination of the shootout. The results are fascinating.
As an old architectural design critic (NC State) I wondered if the setup was quite scientific in its evaluation of various CAD systems. If, in fact, this evaluation is what it is all about, it seems to me that the results are greatly skewed by the differing design talent of the various teams: the relative merits of the systems are submerged by the effects of the varying skills of the teams. What do you think? Is this valid? Arthur Cogswell
Langdon responds :
Well, actually, yes.
For many years I have seen the "canned" demonstrations of all these packages which go so smoothly through some well practiced sequence of commands known to avoid weak areas of their particular software. In most cases they are extremely impressive and very convincing, so I completely understand how design firms emerge from one demonstration after another totally convinced they should get that particular CADD system - and end up really confused after they see several such demonstrations. I also see them months after they get the systems and frequently come in to do tutorials and help the frustrated firms to actually get drawings/models done on real projects and have to answer their questions of how do they even come anywhere close to the imagined instant productivity they saw in the demos by the CADD salesmen. Those demos explicitly tend to use a lot of hidden tricks, such as hidden layers, pre-set snap grids and snap points, predrawn symbols and, of course, finished rendering files of the project (which is why they are reluctant to vary the "design" they seem to be coming up with, though they will purposely plan some "capricious" changes.
In other cases, we are bombarded either with incredible lists of features "oh, we can do that", or by statistics about how many other people "just like you" supposedly use the software (and statistics are equally missleading).
We also have reviews from various experts in books and magazines, which, though they may be the best information, are sometimes the least believed as there is a suspicion (essentially never true) that the reviewers are somehow paid off or biased, and also a given design firm's needs may vary from the reviewers criteria (i.e. a design-build firm may not regard important a reviewers panning of a given packages animation ability and could be more interested in the built in framing module).
Probably most believed, but the worst source of information are comments from other practicing colleagues, whose knowledge of the software packages other than the one they got tends to be very out-of-date and inaccurate.
Thus, these other ways of evaluating software all have their inherent flaws as well. Certainly the Design Shootout is enormously effected by the performance of the three designers on that particular day. That is part of the fun, as well as part of the real validating process. It is fun because we get to see the magic of architecture happening and see other designers do the challenge we do all the time all compressed in a short-enough-to-be-watchable time. It is validating in that, regardless of all the rhetoric of what the software salespeople have, regardless of the features lists and supposed smartness or automatic this and that - put it all aside and see how well one can really design a building.
The skill of the designers in design is an issue - though not a a penultimately crucial one - as none of us expects great architecture during such a short charrette. Also, as is the case with the old ARE exam, trying to create great architecture or doing too much design can get you into trouble, as your work is going to be immediatly evaluated by your peers (and, as you know, there has never been great architecture without considerable controversy). More important is that the Team present their design well, and also show off what they have done and how they did it. We actually watch, and vote on, the process, in many of the categories, not just the final output, and we also vote on things about the software they are using that we perceive from watching them use and present with that software. Some of the things we vote on about the software - such as ease of use - we each bring in knowledge before the charrette begins (from our personal experience, and reviews), however, the Team does have a chance to speak to those issues, and let us know, for instance if their new version of software has something about it that makes it much easier to use than what we may have preconceived before. We also have the Team members speak about their level of experience and time on that software - so we can give latitude to people using software brand new and temper our enthrallment with long time kaamaaina users. All of this ends up reflected in the various point scores your colleagues gave in their evaluations. After all, the attending audience and jury are architectural designers not a nievely impressionable general public. Given all this, then, yes, of course it is valid despite the relative design skills of the Team members.
From: mark@datacad.com (Mark F. Madura)
Personal Thoughts on the CAD Shoot-Out:
After two years of observing the event, I decided to jump in and participate in the third annual Architectural CAD Shoot-Out along with two top-notch DataCAD experts, Mike Smith and Rick Morse.
Overall, I am very pleased with the results of our efforts and feel we accomplished what we set out to do. Since there is both a measured and subjective component to this competition, it is impossible to determine a guaranteed strategy to win. And while our approach this year did not net us the first place position, I'd like to share what I learned from preparing for, and participating in, this year's event and how it relates to your architectural practice.
HARDWARE:
Each year we build two custom "home-brew" machines based on the original Madura Studios prototype. One machine is designed for DataCAD modeling and the other is designed for rendering and animation.
Modeling Machine Specification:
- American ProImage ATX Midsize Tower w/250 Watt Power Supply - ASUS Pentium II Motherboard w/ 350MHz Intel CPU w/Fan - 128MB 100MHz SDRAM Memory - Teac 3.5", 1.44MB Floppy Disk Drive - Western Digital Caviar 6.4GB IDE Hard Disk Drive - Toshiba 32x IDE CD-ROM Drive - Matrox Millennium G200 AGP Graphics Adapter w/8MB - 19" IIYAMA Vision Master 450 Monitor, Base and Cable - Linksys PCI Combo Ethernet Card - Logitech Trackman Marble - MaxiSwitch 124 Key Programmable Keyboard - MicroSoft Windows 98 w/ Plus Pack = Total Cost as of 10/98 - $2,133.85
Rendering Machine Specification:
- American ProImage ATX Midsize Tower w/250 Watt Power Supply - ASUS Pentium II Motherboard w/ 450MHz Intel CPU w/Fan - 128MB 100MHz SDRAM Memory - Teac 3.5", 1.44MB Floppy Disk Drive - Western Digital Caviar 6.4GB IDE Hard Disk Drive - HP 4020i CD-ROM Burner - Matrox Millennium G200 AGP Graphics Adapter w/8MB - 19" IIYAMA Vision Master 450 Monitor, Base and Cable - Linksys PCI Combo Ethernet Card - Logitech Trackman Marble - MaxiSwitch 124 Key Programmable Keyboard - MicroSoft Windows 98 w/ Plus Pack = Total Cost as of 10/98 - $2,830.85
SOFTWARE:
Needless to say, DataCAD and Renderize were the primary applications used. However, a number of other enhancement programs were used to round out our tool set.
- DataCAD 8.05.02 - $695.00 - Renderize Live - included with DataCAD 8 - DC Viewer - included with DataCAD 8 - ImageCELs Professional Designer - $297.00 - Blocker - UniQue Software - $49.95 - 3D Power Tools - UniQue Software - $49.95 - PicaView - http://www.acdsystems.com - Windows Media Player - http://www.microsoft.com- Internet Explorer - included with Windows 98
STRATEGY:
To complete all the required elements.
In past competitions, the DataCAD team was too ambitious with the design which did not leave enough time to complete all of the required elements and views. As Rick indicated, making bold design moves, without getting bogged down in the details (also known as "pixel twiddling"), would be prudent.
To this end, we configured the newly networked workstations as if they had been part of a design firm for many years. We created default drawings that contained a layering structure appropriate for schematic design and rendering. We used a 15 layer page scheme. One page each for site, interior, exterior, and elements. Each layer name corresponds directly to an object/material definition in the Renderize default project file. Subsequent revisions to the 3D geometry in DataCAD are then re-exported via DXF to the Renderize project. Since the material definitions are pre-defined, it's just a matter of adjusting the viewing position and lighting, and rendering the view.
For efficiency, we created network drives and directories specifically for the shoot-out which would be similar to an office set up, only dedicated to the two workstations. We used one folder each for materials, project files, required views, and temporary files. Within the required views folder, we created blank bitmaps for all the required views, about 30 in all. In this way, we were able to use them as a template to plug into as the views were completed. To save time in Renderize, I did not use the final render option. Instead, I used the Edit, Copy option to create a bitmap from the preview image.
As Team Captain, Mike Smith was responsible to coordinate the design tasks and keep Rick and I on the schedule we established ahead of time. A new twist to this year's competition involved Mike and I switching gears to give a pre-defined, two to three minute vignette presentation every twenty minutes throughout the competition.
Unfortunately, since the vignettes were continuous, the judges and the audience did not have an opportunity to see each teams design develop as in past years. So my personal opinion on the subject is that the vignette format would be better suited to a CADD demo seminar than a CADD competition. I would expect Geoff Langdon to keep this in mind for the 1999 event at A/E/C Systems in Los Angeles.
After the design program was handed out, Mike and Rick began immediately on the overall design solution, and I began importing the DXF file and modeling the site. Once Rick established the building foot print, he exported that layer so I could coordinate the site with the building. From that point forward, I could import site data into Renderize independently from the interior and exterior building data Rick would subsequently generate.
Since the site was much simpler than in past years, I finished ahead of schedule and began working on the required ships wheel element. Geoff provided each team with a bitmap for reference. Using the bitmap as a guide, I first developed a cross section for the wheel and swept it around a circle using 3D Power Tools. I then used a horizontal slab with 36 sides to create the hub. Finally, I drew two polyline profiles to represent the section for the spoke and handle components. Using the polyline option from the RevSurf menu, it was very easy to revolve the turned sections on axis, and then rotate and copy them to complete the wheel.
At this point, enough time had elapsed for Rick to generate a basic 3D massing model so I could begin rendering preliminary views of the building exterior coordinated with the site. Once I had set the light source and shadow settings, it was just a matter of saving multiple views that would be used for the final required renderings. As Rick and Mike continued modeling the exterior and interior elements, I moved on to creating the key frames that would be used to develop the animation path.
To create an animation path in Renderize, you need to create the primary view points or key frames first. I started with six key frame views placed around the building from the water, and walking around to the amphitheater. I used these key frames to set up an animation path using 120 in-between frames, also known as tweening. Renderize creates the tweened views automatically.
At this point, I produced a thumbnail animation using a very low resolution of 100x72 pixels. This would only take a few minutes to render and I could see ahead of time if the animation would be smooth and convincing. With all of this complete, I moved on to the merged view requirement while Rick and Mike finalized the 3D model.
In Renderize, I used one of the photograph bitmaps of the site provided by Geoff as a background image in a new view. Then I adjusted my view point to match the photograph. This turned out to be difficult because I did not know what focal length lense Geoff used. I assumed it to be 55mm and that was close enough.
Keep in mind that on top of what we've completed so far, there has been seven vignette interviews.
With the merged view complete, it was time to import the final 3D geometry from Rick via DXF into Renderize and perform final renderings on all the established views, copy them to the pre-defined bitmap files and run the final animation which took around ten to fifteen minutes to complete, which seems like a lifetime in a three hour competition. I can see why most of the teams opted to show double-buffered, dynamic OpenGL views of their projects during the final presentations instead of using a saved animation file.
While I was completing the rendering aspect of the requirements, Rick began extracting the 2D views from the 3D model. The exterior views were straight forward hidden line removals. Rick used the Window, Save as Bitmap option from DataCAD and saved the views over the pre-defined bitmaps in the required views directory. The sectional views were created using the ClipCube option within the Hidden Line Removal menu. This allowed Rick to create ClipCube sections of the 3D model and hide them for the final views.
The schematic floor plans were already complete since Rick used blocker to diagram the program spaces for the first, second and third floor plans using Blocker at the start of the competition. While rick was finishing the construction views, I previewed the final animation, and loaded the building model into DC Viewer to create the required VRML model. This is fairly straight forward. With the desired layers on, I used the File, SaveAs, VRML option and then loaded the resultant .WRL file into Internet Explorer.
As the final buzzer was sounding I had just enough time to select all of the .BMP files simultaneously from DC Viewer, and load them all at once. The allowed me to use the CTRL+TAB function to toggle through all the finished views during the final presentation. I was surprised to hear Mike Smith say "I didn't know you could do that with Viewer!"
So, three hours and fifteen minutes later, we were proud to present a good design with all the required elements complete. As we say at DATACAD LLC, you don't get paid until the drawings get done.
Participating in this years shoot-out gave me first-hand insight into just what you're up against when using DataCAD to compete against top designers using the top ten architectural CADD programs. I feel strongly that DataCAD's overall approach is right on. Simple and direct, without a lot of distracting option dialogs. However, there are many areas we can improve upon, including; Better integration between 2D and 3D, Better integration of CADD and rendering, More advanced parametric entities, Faster display speed, Real-time rendering, More complete DWG compatibility
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it represents the highlight issues we will be addressing in future releases. There have been some recent inquiries as to the status of DC Architect. Simply put, DC Architect is the code base of future technology that has been in development for the past seven years or so. Now referred to as dCODe (DataCAD CADD Object Developer), this technology will serve to enhance DataCAD for Windows' capability.
To give an example, we are planning to incorporate smart walls technology into DataCAD for Windows. These are walls that automatically heal themselves, and allow for the insertion of 3D parametric doors and windows with automatic voids. The problem I have with the way these tools work in other programs, is that they aren't as flexible as the simple 2D walls that make DataCAD so efficient for production drawing.
Taking the smart wall technology one step further, to allow them to be created and edited using the same 2D commands you have become familiar with, it a true solution. And so this approach will apply to most of the smart 3D technology we add to DataCAD. The smart 3D tools have to be as easy to use as the "dumb" 2D tools.
Though it's still too early for me to say it with enthusiasm, I'm looking forward to the next competition. Here's to cranking out your drawings, and getting paid! Mark F. Madura President/CEO DATACAD LLC
From: Wasch@aol.com
In response to Mark's synopsis of the Cad shootout. From my point of view it provides a great deal of information about being able to set up for difficult projects. Well said and a lot to learn from....
All in all, after having looked at the images on DataCAD's web site, reading Mark's, Rick's, Mike's & Evan Shue's remarks, you can not help but to respect the time and effort that was put into this contest. Congratulations to all. Wayne Schultz DraftCAD
From: cjuergens@juno.com (Curt C Juergens)
Excellent recap and insights into the DataCAD team's work, Mark. I would like to restate, that I believe it is your dedication and direct involvement with the DataCAD program that will eventually make it the undeniable program of choice for any architects who don't already use it. Reading about the steps and pace of the competition and the time it must have taken to prepare beforehand, brought back memories of my Architectural Registration Exam many years ago.
One question. Since it appears that some, if not all, parametric entities of DC Architect are now planned to be merged into DataCAD eventually, are there plans to merge DC Viewer and Modeller into the program in future releases also?
Thanks again to the DataCAD team for their time commitment and dedication. Curt Juergens, AIA, P.E. Midwest Design Group Lake St. Louis, MO
From: "neville griffiths" <nevyok@hotkey.net.au>
Congratulations to the DataCAD shootout team, Mark, Mike and Rick, your approach and preparation to the design project I humbly feel was spot on, so common sense can be common in some quarters !
A great effort, thankyou also for open lines of communication regarding the event details, extremely informative !
best regards to all the DataCAD family also best wishes for the new year 1999 ! neville griffiths (nev the rev) Albury New South Wales Australia (Downunder)
Check out the wonderful article about the Design Shootout in the Boston Herald, Friday November 27, 1998, pages 56 and 63 - "Contest puts design in Focus : Annual 3D CAD Shootout pits architects against clock". Find the Boston Herald also online at http://www.bostonherald.com
From: "Eric Batte" <ebatte@flex.net>
I think I read on Graphisoft's web site that ArchiCAD won a medal for ADA in the recent CAD Shootout. Anyone know what this is about? I personally have not noticed any special ADA compliance/analysis features in ArchiCAD.
Langdon responds :
No there is no special ADA ability in ArchiCAD that you have missed, nor was the category ArchiCAD won solely about ADA issues. The first interview, which Tamas Hajas eloquently handled for the ArchiCAD Team, was not a graphic problem (as the other interviews were) but simply an interview where we wanted them to tell us what their current and future plans were for accomodating four growingly important issues to architects with their design software. Not that we expect them to come up with graphic modelers or GDL macros, but to let us know, since they are developing design software that is supposed to help us with a myriad of design issues not just drafting, how they may be able to help i.e. prepare certain info such as wall square footages for export to another program, offer hyperlink "architectural advise" on ramp slopes, required distances, or whatever. Those four issues were 1. Energy Analysys, 2. ADA issues, 3. Cost Analysis, and 4. Interoperability.
The question on energy analysis was manipulative on our part. This issue has gotten lost over the past decade with most architectural technologists preoccupied with CADD in the first place; however its importance to architecture has not gone away, and in the future will be even more important - first in specific regions then everywhere. Now that most CADD has caught up with intelligence, and most of our other wish lists are already accomodated, from space planning through design development to details and rendering, then perhaps now is a good time to remind these companies that as architects we would like easy energy analysis also, so that it becomes yet another factor in every design, just like view, cost, and structure. In fact, it is particularly irking when every single program is calculating light and sunlight already, but only for rendering, and not other more useful purposes. Thus we took the new Massachusetts code requirement (which now requires energy analysis for all buildings) as an excuse to at least bring this issue up. ArchiCAD, in fact, is the only program in the competition that had energy analysis in the form of simple BTU heat loss some 12 YEARS ago; however, they have since sort of taken this feature OUT (or at least made it so "flexible" as to be unusable now) since it was linked with that quantity take off stuff that they have modified extensively in recent years due to builders and developers input.
The ADA (Americans for Disability Act for anyone who has been in a cave for 5 years) is the most dramatically architecturally impacting legislation in many decades, and, though there are many many interpretations, there are, at least a number of good guidelines that would be helpful in some type of hypertext whether developed by our favorite CADD developers or just linked to from there. It is surprising that many programs now have all these automatic stair macro generators, yet ramps that now must exist in or around all buildings and elevators with which we need more help than with stairs, are sorely neglected. Thus, this interview, and the one later subtitled Stairs, Ramps, and Elevators were meant to address these code issues.
Cost Analysis is an obvious category, and even though this particular issue is less important (to have in their CADD program) to architects than builders and developers it still can be extremely useful. Besides, with intelligent architectural CADD, this is usually just an offshoot to what the software is already doing. As you certainly know, ArchiCAD is way ahead on this one, and, though it does not do a wood frame cut list like some other builders oriented CADD software does, it is pretty good and can allow for variences in costs, such as between Nantucket and Vermont.
Interoperability refers to the desire to transfer USABLE drawings from one intelligent CADD program to another - i.e. a wall AS a wall with the ability to insert and transfer windows and doors AS windows and doors - which is something that is not possible today. Most file transfers go through DXF or DWG, which, as AutoCAD standards, devolve into the weakest link which is AutoCAD's non-associated non-intelligent two dimentional lines and flat four-corner 3DFaces. Thus, transferring a wonderful 3D model done in FormZ to ArchiCAD via DXF or DWG is an enormous loss of technology. There is an organization called the IAI (the International Alliance for Interoperability) which is a committee commissioned with addressing this issue. While no one likes to wait for a committee, there are only two other options, both unacceptible, one that each CADD developer developes a special translator to each other CADD company they make special alliances with (which is exactly what is happening now), or two that we all standardize on ONE particular CADD program (and guess which one all those Autodesk people would want to pick). On this particular issue actually ArchiCAD is way ahead of the rest - partly because ArchiCAD has had all this intelligence for more than a decade and it is only now the rest are catching up with where ArchiCAD was - and is the only real architectural member currently in the IAI. (Nemetschek is a member but not for their architectural AllPlan software). A number of non-Autodesk companies also are currently paying lipservice to the IAI's efforts, but it will be fall 1999 at the absolute earliest that any of us will actually see anything happening in architectural CADD. At any rate, it is too early for us to make this a requirement in the Design Shootout, so we just want them to tell us where they stand.
Arris won this particular Vingette Interview of these four topics, followed by ArchiCAD, which was very closely followed by AllPlan. Probably their comments about their progressive firm's approach to the IAI thing and their foundation on intelligent objects with built in cost analysis is why these three carried this category.
From: "john.cruet" <john.cruet@snet.net>
Two months after the shootout VectorWorks was finally released.
I now have the program fully implemented into my system and I think it is the best implementation of MiniCad ever.
The review of the team's work regarding the pier assignment was very enlightening considering what the team had to put up with. They had a beta release version and probably little time to prepare for some of the surprises they encountered.
The Render Works feature is fabulous. The shading is nice and crisp.
The roof tools in the AEC mode are far easier to use than before, and easier to implement than in other programs.
Future CADD shootouts should challenge these teams to come up with complete schematic design presentations, printed, plotted, and ready for paper presentation. The reason I suggest this modification in format is that I have been disappointed in the final plot output appearance of some of the programs I auditioned or demo'ed in the past three years. I specifically mention Arris, an otherwise fine program, which, when I saw a working drawing sample of it at Kaestle-Boos Architects in Connecticut, had blatant line thicknoess problems- dimension and witness lines were way too thick, for instance.
The next time VectorWorks plays before a CADD shootout it will most certainly resume its position as a top contender- and a very cost-effective one at that.
John Cruet, Jr., AIA
From: David.Green@dpws.nsw.gov.au
Philip wrote: 1. I have always had problems with the format of the shootout - I think that the focus on 3D and the narrowly complex requirements mean that the relevance of the competition to everyday CAD use is pretty minimal. <end
Maybe whats needed is a 'Production Run' shootout. similar brief, oops, I mean program, to the one being talked about but the only output allowed being a set of construction-like drawings which have to be pinned up for public viewing. David Green CA MGMA Sydney Australia
From: Naftali Flink <argfn@netmedia.net.il>
>If the CAD shoot out has a strong production element, as it should as probably 90% of CAD work is production drawings, good old DOS based Datacad
>with no bells and whistles will win hands down. If it is parametric or 3D, then DataCad LLC ought to sponsor a 2D shoot out.
>Perhaps Mr. Langdon could do this after the first of the year. just a thought
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with setting up such a dichotomy of functions in today's CADD world.
While I agree that Datacad's program has the advantage to allow one to almost instantly start to draw floor plans, without much forethought regarding wall heights and window heights, which is great, when it comes to drawing those elevations and sections, one has to just about start from scratch all over again, which is a big DISadvantage.
Other programs on the CADD market are only "slower" than Datacad in that they force all the major decisions to be made BEFORE you "pick" and drag the mouse, but then again, when you get to the Sections and Elevations stage of the game, you are way ahead.
With today's computers, unless one has a CADD program which can do it all-in- one, with Elevations and sections automatically generated together with the floor plan, it's like going down a bumpy dirt road in a car which can do 130 MPH ! I have a brother-in-law who's company does work for the Defense Department, and his computer at home has a 386 CPU, which is still adequate for his needs. If all we want from Datacad is 2D, we might as well be using a 386 ourselves.
I personally try to exploit the built-in 3d features of Datacad as much as possible, both for prelim design work, as well as for setting up all my construction documents. I use 3D slabs, together with Rick Morse's method of Exploding 2d lines to polygons and working in 3d mode from there. Dcad's 3D windows capability is a pleasure to work with, plus one can file them. I recently downloaded BuildPLAN from Australia, and I am having a lot of satisfaction with the results. BuildPlan really forces me to make a lot of decisions right from the start, but I feel it's good practice for the future of CADD in general, and Datacad in particular.
Look at Datacad's DC Viewer. If one is still doing plans without paying any attention to Z heights, DC Viewer is practically useless. Who needs to see a plan in isometric view with toilet symbols going from Z-base 0 to Z-height 678 ?? For that matter, who needs to see a plan in any position other than Ortho ?? One can have gripes about this and that graphics in the program, but DC Viewer is really great for the 3D modeller, and shows the direction of the future for Datacad.
In the not-to-distant future, there won't be any CADD program which will allow one to draw, pardon the expression, "stupid" walls, only "smart" walls, so we better all get on with it, the sooner the better.
Wishing Datacad LLC all the best in the upcoming Shootout Respectfully yours, Naftali Flink
From: JoeVance <JoeVance@aol.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998
While I heartily commend your group for the work you have done the past two years on this... I was quite disheartened, especially after looking at the results on the web site, to see ArchiCAD coming in 4th, despite having won more categories than any other. In reviewing your results and speaking to people in attendance, it seems a real weak point in the current structure of the shootout is the audience voting. I am told there were very few audience members left by the end of the shootout, and for whatever reason, they did not vote at all on several of the entrants. It is a real shame to have so exhaustively established grading criteria and a means of evaluating differing programs, then have all that skewed by votes from audience members that may not have attended the entire event, and that could be skewed by more users of one program in attendance over another.
I encourage you to keep holding these, but please rethink the audience vote, or certainly the weighting of that vote. Joseph Vance, AIA
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999
From: "Scott B. Roberts" <scottr@dhc.net>
Subject: Re: DBUG> Worldwide Invitation to Architects
<<< Geoffrey Moore Langdon wrote:
In just 6 weeks the most exciting and dramatic competition in the Architectural Pro