Home Forums Ireland CAD or GIS?

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    • #706897

      CAD tends to work from the hard copy backways to the system of inputting/storing and organising your visual information.

      Whereas designers tend to think in the opposite direction.

      Is a profession like Architecture still awaiting a time when it will merge better with computers, than the way in which CAD has done?

      At the end of the day, I know a very many architects nowadays are trying to be geographers and a very many geographers are trying to be architects. It is a crazy and confused world we are growing up in people.

      Very, very nice ESRI Volumes, tonnes of stuff.

      Geography—Creating Communities
      The maps in this volume show how GIS is cutting across disciplines, providing a common language for discussion, and bringing people together in the decision making process. GIS enables us to share data in different societal communities thereby creating a framework for this global information network.

    • #741616

      speaking as someone who is intimatley involved in the GIS world and with ESRI I can tell you that the promise of GIS data is at present far greater than its exploitation

      by the way – ESRI have an irish operation if you want to pick up any of their ‘off the shelf’ packages

    • #741617
    • #741618

      I am in the middle of using AutoCAD 2004 in a heavy, get-up-and-go plotted hard copy outputting environment. I.e. Organising information specifically so that it plots as you want, and conveys the message.

      But usually I find myself working from the HP large format plotter back to my drawing. I find, then when I put my designer, architectural thinking cap on…… I am sketching etc, or making a card board model….. and I am thinking a lot more in the opposite direction.

      I have a lot of respect for the people who use CAD and organise CAD data everyday of their lives. But they generally do have to be very sure about what their ultimate goals are. I hardly ever see a stage at which ‘design goals’ do become integrated with CAD goals. And I have looked at all the newest, latest softwares from AutoDesk etc out there.

      It always boils back down to the same thing – a plotted hard copy drawing with proper dimensions, text, scalebars, linewidths, colours etc, etc, etc. I entertained myself with a bit of a speech to the nation over here: If you are interested. 🙂

    • #741619
      niall murphy

      what does GIS stand for or what is it?

    • #741620

      GIS – Geographic Information Systems. It’s a bit like CAD, but think of it as a map with a full database attached to it.

      It’s certainly quite heavily used by planners in this country, but I don’t know of any architects who use it. It tends to be used at the national / regional / local scale rather than the site specific scale that most architects work at.

      As a GIS user since the early 90’s I agree with Ro, the technology is not being expoloited to it’s fullest by any means.

    • #741621

      that is basically what it does alright…. in the general sense, but the ERSI link also proves how many ‘architectural’ conclusions a GIS approach is capable of generating.

      While CAD may be very geared toward representing the advanced language of 2D line weights, dimension lines, hatching, shading, …..

      I don’t think a CAD software is going to generate any great conclusions on its own. But I do see architects trying to modify their CAD type software as ‘design generation tools’.

      Looking at those ERSI projects, I am just wondering is a GIS still approach far more suit towards generating results, based on values or ‘rules’ you would input into the computer.

      Some of the visual information coming from those GIS generated presentations was very interesting from an architectural point of view. This is interesting, as geographers are often times accused by architects of NOT being ‘visual’ kinds of people, or as much ‘spatially minded’ so much as verbal people.

      If GIS still has to be exploited, I would say that CAD has pretty much past that point, and every new release these days, finds it very difficult to justify itself at all.

      This AutoCAD Upgrade Makes Sense

      Guest Editorial
      by Darren J. Young

      After reading comments regarding AutoCAD 2005, I come to the conclusion that most have lost their sense of objectivity. I’ve done my fair share of Autodesk bashing, but some of the reader’s comments seem out of place — considering the product isn’t on the dealers’ shelves, and there’s very few who have even seen it.

      While it may seem like Autodesk thinks we have all the time in the world to learn new things, this doesn’t mean they should stop development, or be geared toward writing functions for which there are already a wealth of free AutoLISP routines to take care of. Would anyone in their right mind pay $300 for an update that allows you to glue a couple lines back together?

      As far as Autodesk ignoring basic drafting needs with AutoCAD 2005, I think people are missing the significance of this release. You want to revise a detail number? Or add a sheet in the middle of a set, and have all references update automatically? It’s in there. From what I’ve gathered, sheet sets are not the easiest to set up, but AutoCAD’ll do it, and do it automatically once configured properly.

      Built-in table objects? Seems like a basic drafting need to me.

      I can’t think of any release since I started back on R10 that has the potential to significantly impact the productivity of such a wide range of users — if people would only take the time to learn of it.

      It seems to me as if nobody is happy unless the product is easy and tailored to them — at the expense of everyone else. Until such time that Autodesk adds a mind-reading module, there’s no way AutoCAD will EVER offer the flexibility everyone demands, and make it so simple that it just happens the way you want it.

      I, for one, welcome the shift Autodesk seems to be making: from minor, token, little, polished enhancements that touch the lives of a small handful of users, to a more big-picture approach that includes some real vision into the future. Autodesk shouldn’t focus on helping people do tasks better, like drawing lines and arcs; they should focus on helping users do their jobs better. AutoCAD 2005 is the first time in a long time, if not ever, that I’ve seen Autodesk move in what I think is the right direction.

      If someone wants the polish, they should look into buying third- party add-ons, like Terry Dotson’s ToolPac <> or Owen Wengerd’s QuikPik <>. Both add a lot of polish and day-to-day productivity enhancements for a lot less than the price of an AutoCAD upgrade. There’s a wealth of talented good third-party developers out there for specific needs.

      For once, Autodesk has stopped listening to the naysayers who think AutoCAD is a mature product, and that there’s really nothing left for Autodesk to do with it. That lack of imagination is what’s left users reluctant to upgrade — not the absence of a routine that heals a couple broken lines.

      If AutoCAD 2005 sales do poorly, it’ll be a result of people being complacent about accepting what’s handed to them, and not demanding real insight and imagination.

      (Darren J. Young is a CAD/CAM systems developer in Minnesota, USA.)

    • #741622

      i’d argue cad is still very much relevant as a tool for manipulating outputs of GIS tools. it’s still relevant – it’s just a bit down the food chain. There are function of Autocad that GIS tools can’t and shouldn’t ever provide

    • #741623

      One of the only advantages of keeping everything ‘inside’ a system like AutoCAD for architects, is having access to all that data from the one software.

      Architects in practice are forever scared of the ‘guy who would use the different programme’ not being there on any given day, or leaving the practice altogether and being impossible to replace.

      Meaning that all that data automatically becomes redundant too. This tends to the be the driving force behind use of software in general, and you see people ‘trying’ to do some pretty crazy stuff with AutoCAD… the kinds of operations you could just munch through using a more suitable application.

      Sad, but true. 🙂

      I was kinda hinting at this here:

    • #741624

      When I was in the
      field in 1982, the
      firm I was working
      for had just
      acquired the state-of-the-art technology, a
      total station that essentially combined a
      theodolite and a distance meter into one
      instrument. The party chief had a handheld
      HP calculator that could do an
      incredible new task—perform inversing
      calculations in the field. The survey manager
      sat inside and calculated traverse closures
      on a Monroe desktop calculator with
      a big handle on the side. We plotted the
      survey points on paper with a circular compass,
      and a scale, then we interpolated
      contours with a plastic strip marked with
      little equally spaced lines and drew them
      on the plan by hand.

      From an article in the Jan/Feb PDF issue of AUGI world,

      Registration is free.

      Just thought you might be interested.

    • #741625

      What an amazing and exciting time to be
      “in the field.”

      Land XML

      The idea of sharing civil data between
      applications has been a dream for many
      years, and LandXML is increasingly becoming
      the answer to that need. LandXML files
      provide a format for storing points, surfaces,
      alignments, parcels, pipe runs, and roadway
      models. Any civil/survey software developer
      can now develop the code to read and write
      these files, thereby easily sharing these
      types of data.

      The following extract from another article in the Sept/Oct 2003 issue of AUGI world magazine sounds quite familiar actually to how Architects can sometimes prolong a design stage, or feasability stage in CAD, for ages, literally.

      Part of our civil engineering solution is a
      product called Autodesk Envision 8, which
      allows the user to present land development
      plans to clients and reviewers in
      terms they understand.

      Autodesk Envision
      allows the planner to bring in all the different
      data types from CAD to engineering
      data to GIS information to imagery and
      put it into one solid model, what I call a 3D
      model of existing conditions. You can take
      the imagery, for example, and drape it over
      the terrain model; you can bring in some
      preliminary design information—from
      roads to houses to parcels—and display it.

      You can show the model from any perspective
      to show people what it will look
      like from their view, not just yours. You get
      an engineering accurate model but have
      not wasted hours and hours to do it.

      Time at this point in the project is critical as you
      are not sure if the plan is viable and costs
      are tight. Envision allows you to communicate
      and show the plan and let people suggest
      changes and collaborate to buy into
      the concept.

      I found this particular quote revealing too, about the gap that currently can exist in large government planning/engineering departments who use ERSI or AUtoCAD etc:

      One example is
      the City of Seattle. The City of Seattle is integrating
      many of its departments, which traditionally
      have been silos where GIS was one
      group, survey was one group, and engineering
      was one group. Even though the departments
      were individually very efficient, when
      they had to pass information from one
      department to another, it was another story.
      They spent more time doing data conversion
      than they spent on design work.
      By having software tools for each phase
      of the project lifecycle, with the ability for
      each to work off the same information
      from any source, you can link in all the various
      players on a project, creating a more
      efficient way to get the project done. It
      allows you to get the right data to the right
      people at the right time, resulting in a better
      and more predictable delivery schedule
      and a better bottom line. And in the end
      what you get is a very happy client—all
      because more time was spent with them
      and their design than on converting data.

      I honestly have to wonder, in my own mind, how much of the above could have been also true with LUAS?

      Thread I found here at Cyburbia about a very similar topic.

    • #741626

      Map geeks aren’t made. They’re born. They come into this world with a special sense of spatiality, a heightened awareness of their place in the world and a need to help others find theirs.

      A preacher guides lost souls. A map geek points to Page 830, Grid E-4, and says, “There you are.”

    • #741627

      The friendly face of privatisation? 🙂 Free market economy and all of that? Anyone care to comment on this situation of three ESB poles.

    • #741628


    • #741629


Viewing 14 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Latest News