Architectural software offered many different types, prices, features, and quality. I won’t talk about every option here, as there are literally lots of different small, inexpensive plans available at your local software lager.
Instead, I will focus on the main players in the architectural software program market for design experts. This will also be useful for newbie designers… especially those who might want to share (or pass on) their own files to an architect or even engineer without having compatibility problems.
Here are some of the most popular new software programs available, along with the comments, based on my thirteen years of experience working with a number of them. These programs are popular in design firms all around the nation, but can also be used by everyday consumers, as well.
Microstation
Archicad
Chief Architect
SketchUp
AutoDesk Products, such as AutoCAD, AutoCAD LT, Revit, VIZ, 3ds Max, AutoSketch, Cyber, and other plugins and accessories.
Below are some descriptions along with comments about the list earlier mentioned…
Microstation
Many who are die-hard MicroStation users will quickly suggest that it is a much more stable software to work with, as opposed to the industry normal AutoCad. Many suggest that it’s much easier to deal with and that the coders did many things much more wisely in their architectural software layout, as it relates to the user expertise.
One glaring problem is this kind of…
Even IF MicroStation is a great deal better program than AutoCAD, really still got some main flaws for the end-user. The very first and most critical flaw is the fact it only comprises about 5-10% of the architectural software marketplace. Therefore, if the software is not really COMPLETELY compatible in BOTH INSTRUCTIONS, this poses workflow trouble for our design team… as well as yes, it has some severe compatibility issues with AutoCAD.
Regardless of how much Microstation users wish to deny it, there ARE match ups issues, especially if you use x-refs and images/OLE objects within your AutoCAD drawings. When an individual opens your AutoCAD records in Microstation, often the x-refs become unviewable, and the end-user will then need to contact typically the architect to either “bind” his drawings into one pulling, or another similar process. OR, they will have to turn in the drawings themselves. As an architect, this is not practical.
You will discover more information about Bentley’s Microstation on their website at http://www.bentley.com.
Archicad
Archicad is more of a universal 2d/3d application that is designed to provide a total project end result, including modeling & object rendering, as well as 2-dimensional building documents. Changes made to the actual model are updated in most views, such as plans, elevations, 3d models, etc.
Archicad stores all the information about the creation in a central database; modifications made in one view are generally updated in all others, which include floor plans, sections/elevations, 3 DIMENSIONAL models, and bills of fabric.
Although I do not individually have experience with Archicad, they are definitely making a direct effect in the architectural software business, however, still only living in a very small percentage of the market. One thing I am not too sure about is the solitary database file structure.
The concern is that I need to have the ability to delegate different responsibilities in order to team members, and if only one individual can be working on the document at a time, then this poses a significant workflow problem. It is possible that Graphisoft (the makers of Archicad) has addressed this, you could find out more information about their merchandise on their website at http://www.graphisoft.com.
Fundamental Architect
Chief Architect is among the leading software products with regard to residential design. Since the business is 99. 9% commercial, I cannot speak to its can effectiveness, but I do know they have got marketed the product well. According to more expensive competition, the actual graphics are limited, but it appears to provide a very acceptable outcome from that perspective.
I attempted a demo more than a decade ago and quickly recognized its limitations in new software design for commercial tasks, so I have not pursued this for our design purposes.
You could find more information here at their website… http://www.chiefarchitect.com.
SketchUp
SketchUp is becoming very popular and more well-known, especially since Google has purchased the program rights. We use SketchUp often to convey design tricks to our clients, as well as within our style and design team.
Its ease of use, in addition to the ability to quickly generate three-dimensional representations of building design, allow it to become a very useful piece of system software. Its rendering functionality is limited, compared to 3ds Max, but the price tag is definitely proportional. SketchUp will not break up your bank account, whereas 3ds Potential is only affordable if you are definitely making some good money from a 3d modeling efforts
My partner and I highly recommend this product. You can get additional information at http://www.sketchup.com.
AutoCAD
AutoCAD, by AutoDesk, is typical by which all CAD software program is compared… not because they have necessarily a better program, yet because it occupies, by far, the very best market-share for professionals as compared to any other CAD software program obtainable.
In fact, for the 13+ yrs that I’ve been using AutoCAD (since version 10), just about 5% of our consultants or perhaps other design professionals buy anything other than AutoCad, or perhaps other AutoDesk products. You will find a link to a large collection of AutoDesk products at http://architecturalsoftware.jdlarchitects.com.
Now, of course, AutoDesk thinks that this IS because their plan is superior to the others. This can be the case, but you will get various types of opinions from all sorts of brands, architects, and engineers. The majority of the complaints, including my own, usually are that AutoCad is not incredibly user-friendly. This is definitely a predicament.
The program is so powerful, that it could take someone decades to find out its features. Often, it can be so much easier to just use the attributes you know, than to keep excavating into its vast attribute sets… you could literally commit all of your time trying to learn the many program features, but you could not get any real work.
That being said, I have used AutoCAD for 13+ years now, of course, if it is used correctly, with all the proper sheet setups and also reference files, your work can be as efficient as with any anatomist software product.
In Conclusion
In summary, even if there are debatable concerns about architectural software top quality and user-friendliness, it just won’t make sense to me, to use something other than AutoDesk’s products. I might not be enthused about it, yet I have to ensure that my work is efficient. The pointless hoops to jump by when using CAD software that just 5% of the world is employing, is not practical.
I want our file structure to be taken care of on my consultant’s end, as the design process requires back-and-forth transferring of files through the process (sometimes dozens as well as hundreds of times on huge projects), it is obviously a great unacceptable solution if you have compatibility condition issues to deal with.
Yes, there are several design teams fighting their particular way through this process, even so, the problem is that their high management, on the average, isn’t going to be savvy enough about recent software applications to care about “how” their production happens… many people just care that it obtains done. What they don’t realize, is always that if they implemented proper flow of work usage of architectural software, they may save literally hundreds of man-hours on each job.
Read also: Exactly why is This Computer So Gradual?