Lets nuke the computer whiz. . .

Null.

Null.

Null

Null.

Null.

Right lets talk about this thread at CG Architect. I made a couple of posts there too:

http://www.cgarchitect.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000496

I think this is why they always had structural engineering and technology classes in Bolton Street! 🙂

Null

Null

I agree with your argument and, although I am only a second year architecture student, I can see that the movement of computers into the industry has many detrimental effects. Is this the fault of the person who knows how to use them or is it a misguided intention of those in charge (“movement towards the future”)?

Generally though, because these VIZ guys have spent so much of their own free time sitting down learning the techniques required etc, and often financing purchase of computer, pheripherals and software by themselves, they tend to be very ‘over-protective’ about what they know, and their status within an architectural practice. I mean training alone cost me in the region of €1500 back in 1998, and I didn’t even go the whole hog with 3DS VIZ etc – I did finance the cost of the training myself though, without any architect’s support.

null

I remember when I first paid for my own computer, software and training back in the late nineties – I started to do my own jobs etc, etc. Then when I worked in practice, on computers, I will admit I behaved very defensively about what I knew about the computer, and how to use it.

I remember there was a computer given to the project team, consisting of two members – myself and another girl, who also had basic CAD skills. Now, instead of organising the day in two distinct halves – one in which I would sketch and she could draft in CAD, and visa versa – I totally monopolised the CAD workstation – and therefore, while she had to do some CAD too, she couldn’t and had to sketch all day long.

We as skilled VIZ and CAD users tend to do this far too often and not even be aware of it, until years afterwards when looking back. Hence the title of the thread, Let’s nuke the computer whiz.

Since the only way possible to ever suceed in this profession is to communicate well. I.e. Anyone who might choose to use computers as their tool, is leaving themselves wide open to accusations of being ‘the computer geek’. It has actually reached that level now.

You are talking to someone, who got kicked off a job once, for making chairs in a CAD file red instead of blue. The fact that I changed it in 5 minutes didn’t manage to change their minds. If that action wasn’t a ‘knive in the back’ I don’t know what is. Two months worth of my drawing work in CAD format completely disappeared from the main file server, only a while before that.

Basically the architectural technicians love opportunities to take a good ‘cut’ at young architects and architectural students. In the case of CAD in offices, they are having a field day – the computer presents such an ideal ‘camouflage’ condition to sucessfully mount gorilla-sytle attacks on young architects. Where the boss hasn’t a clue generally speaking what is going on, and only has the word of his/her trusted authority in the matter – his/her architectural technician.

In the matter of supervision, the project architects are now flying completely blind in this situation. Most worrying of all, is the ‘panic reaction’ by architect employers now, to only employ technicians period, because architects aren’t seen to be able to use these machines at all. Making the entry level jobs for a young architect, very difficult to find indeed, by comparison with the said positions for young technicians. If I could choose again, which course to actually do, I know which one I would almost definitely go for.

Null

i am actually appaled at the reactions u have been getting brian. i would suggest backing up your drawings on ur hard drive if they do that.

Exactly how many young architects starting off in practice for the first time in their lifes do you think are going to know what a hard drive even is?

I regularly have to show people how to format a floppy disk, find the C: drive in their computer and show they how to save a document. I still think it is a bit beyond the average abilities of young architects out their in practice to prempt such disasters occuring, in the manner you have described.

In the case of files disappearing from the main file server – I had a CDROM backup of all my work in that case. But I didn’t even bother to restore the files to the file server. Because the damage was already done in my opinion – if people want to do things like that at all – why even bother?

The client phoned up asking for a print of the drawings, and the said building was already at foundation DPC level and my architects firm had to just tell the client, ‘we have no drawings’.

Of course, they did suceed in making me look bad in this instance, in the eyes of my particular employer. But then, I believe that everyone in the practice should be playing on the same team at least, otherwise it is hopeless. The client is just paying you to hold very expensive personal arguments, and that is in general the service which clients are receiving in a lot of cases today.

Just said I would include this too:

Another example, and one of the first times way back in 1997 that I ever saw computer visualisation used in architectural practice at all.

A big American Tech company were outsourcing their operations over here to Ireland and were gong to build a brand new state of the art factory space. The architect came up with a design worth 12 million pounds, which had this very nice space frame roof construction. The building was probably big enough to justify the cost of the space frame components etc, but it would have cost only 11 million to build the same building with a standard flat roof construction, using girders etc.

But visually speaking, the space frame just looked awesome, out of this world, by comparison with the flat roof, girder solution. So the architect in a last ditch effort to sell his ‘space frame’ concept to the client went out on a limb and did something almost unprecedented in Ireland here at the time – he paid almost 5,000 pounds I think to commission some digital artist to do a CG render showing the building ‘as it would look’ with the space frame.

None of us had ever seen this technique of representation ever before, and we all ganged around him in the office one day, to see the new CG visualisation when it finally arrived. Anyhow, the excitement was short lived, as the client would not go that extra mile for a space frame, but it might have been worth it, dunno.

Anyhow, it is an interesting early example of the roots of visualisation and its use in the architectural profession – in that case it helped the said architect to really argue his point much better, than he could have done without it.

But thinking back upon this instance now, it is amazing how closely the visualisation and quantity surveyor, cost issues are linked together. Just in the debate I had raging with Nisus and the boys over at CG Architect, about the over designed balconies.

The one important thing, which did come of the 55 post thread over at CG Architect, in the Finished work forum, was that situations for the architectural profession vary to a high degree in different parts of the world.

You are writing your replies from Canada – I have worked with Architects from Canada over here, in their fifties who were using more computers back in the 1970s, than we are using them now here in Ireland.

Null

Null

Null

The Quantity surveyor thing – do you have them in Canada? – that was dragged straight into the 55 post thread at CG Architect – like out of nowhere and reminds me of those times in college doing interactive projects between architects, engineers and surveyors – in a discussion about CG visualisation, of all places!

Null

Null

null

This web site is increasingly beginning to remind me of geography and GIS rather than actual architecture.

I think to confuse the two to too much of an extent is a problem – expressed by the recent City Architect or City Geographer thread here at Archiseek.

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.

http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume16/index.html

http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume17/index.html

http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume18/index.html

It is not that Fin.

Have a look at the format of this forum:

http://www.aceshardware.com/forum

Three things in particular:

1. Message Board gets ‘flushed’ regularly. You cannot reply to an old thread, and promote it back up to the ‘top’ of the message board like you can here.

Possibly not relevant to Archiseek discussion content, but interesting as a concept nonetheless.

It makes for very quick, decisive type of discussion rather than the long drawn out, ‘holding a grudge’ for too long aspect that can develop here at Archiseek.

2. You can cut in anywhere in the thread. This means, that stray discussions, on sub-topics can be almost conducted without affecting too much, the nature of the discussion in the first place.

But here at Archiseek it is totally sequential, making it too easy for people to spam out a thread very quickly and mess it up totally.

It normally ends up in someone saying something about a political party and that is the end of the thread basically, as in my chit-chat with Helloinsane.

It would be fine if my chit-chat with Helloinsane just developed into a sub discussion, like you can do at Aceshardware forum.

Then I wouldn’t delete anything. I HATE the sequential, ping-pong nature of this boards format.

It pre-dictates and defines too much the way in which people here post, discuss and how they explore issues.

It is completely useless as far as I am concerned as a medium for meaningful discussion.

Of which I am very capable of, but I simply cannot do it, by using this format of message board here.

3. You can look at a thread from the outside first, without actually going into it. New posts made since your last visit are marked with a red NEW sign.

Posters have the ability to change the header of their posts, telling you exactly what they want to say in their posts.

Sometimes, all they post is the heading part, and put NT (no text) after it, and thereby manage to conduct brief one line replies.

There are a lot of things about Aceshardware which make sense, and work and make the Aceshardware forum the really educational site it is to visit.

Of course some of the quality of the posting is very good over there too, about computer hardware etc.

Notice in the general message board overall view too, how you can see exactly which board members conducted the discussion and who was doing most of the talking etc.

Which makes it very easy to pick out threads with posters whom you are interested in listening to.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Originally posted by sw101
Ah brian. this sequential method is perfectly adequate for discussion. you’re just annoying people when you fuck around with it

You see SW, if like me you were a very experienced message board reader and poster on a regular basis, in a wide range of interests, like CG, Planning, Architecture and Computer Science…… then like me you would be more attuned to subtle differences in formats, which make all the difference.

Parallel discussion ability within within the same thread is essential to disect more complex issues – which are really a combination of subissues, rather than being one solid issue, with one right or wrong.

Why do you think the tribunals, and Dail proceedings take so long and all have to be recorded?

Parellel discussion formats in message boards are a blessing…… while sequential discussion formats are just shit.

Like the format we are using here. Ping-pong-ping-pong-ping-pong. I am sorry, but it is true.

Paul does a wonderful job, and is very professional….. but has only finite resources, too finite really….. to enable a proper ideal discussion format for the issues we are dealing with here.

One of the things they have learned from the Tribunals actually, is how many more of them could have gone on in parallel in one sitting of the judges/jury etc, instead of doing everything in sequences and costing a lot more – to get the witnesses to show up all at the same time etc, etc.

Just as well noone is paying us here, to do what we do eh? 🙂 Or you would arrive very quickly at a strange looking sum. And that is what put an awful lot of ‘knowledge experts’ off posting their opinions at places like Archiseek I think, because it reminds them of some very long drawn out, over extended, mis-allocation of public funding like the format the tribunals took. Whereas, if you had parallel discussion format, you could get more done, and accomplish an awful lot more with just one single thread called, one particular heading.

The system breaks down here totally when you try to look at ‘big issues’ like cars and the environment, or roundabouts etc, etc, etc. Which are very multi-dimensional parallel-type of issues.

BTW, I have studied the science of knowledge management in great detail over the past couple of years, MicroSoft have invested megabucks in this particular area and published a lot of material on the subject, but so have many others…… so I am not just pulling things straight out of my own arse.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

It is basically up to every individual to take the web as seriously as they wish…. but http://www.aceshardware.com/forum is used by a lot of IT managers responsible for million Euro budgets and investment management each year…. so updating awareness and learning is part of their job description.

I find it interesting just how sucessful a format aceshardware message board was, for debating fairly complex IT issues, from all kinds of angles.

What I like about Aceshardware message board so much though, is the shere number of opinions it can accomodate on a single topic.

A sequential message board like this one, generally will only accomodate a couple of fairly familiar posters…. like the people who regularly post here at Archiseek.

While Aceshardware accomodates literally hundreds every week, all posting opinions and creating a virtual melting pot of ideas and thinking about IT.

Very fair point.

I see where you are coming from now.

Correct, you would end up with something just so totally incomprehensible as to become a complete and absolute joke.

Everyone just conducting their very own private like talk…. that was necessary in aceshardware, because I could be troubleshooting some very obscure and tiny minute difficulty related to MS Windows OS or a new Graphics accelerator board or something…. so it would be really specfic and detailed.

I.e. If someone else ran into a similar problem at aceshardware…. they could pass on a possible diagnosis or fix etc.

Whereas the ‘restriction’ imposed by the sequential posting format does provide that necessary limit I guess to prevent a ‘real bird’s nest’ from happening.

BTW, I am a well known poster over at http://www.aceshardware.com/forum, though I don’t have the time these days to post anymore, and am largely ‘out’ of the IT end of things.

Back in the late nineties…. my suppliers of computers/components was a guy here in Dublin called ‘Gareth’….. when I would buy stuff from gareth I would quickly rush home and run questions by the ‘aceshardware’ message board… it was very surprising how useful and interesting a way this was to operate.

Hence I just kept ‘garethace’ hotmail and garethace handle ever since,…. even though I could be posting in completely different message boards.

Where did SW101 come from?

used it anywhere else?

or is archiseek, you first and last web-partner? 🙂

null

No reason at all…. it is just that separating your online learning emails etc, etc…. isn’t a bad idea at all…. rather than having everything coming into one mail box.

At least you can discontinue using a forum email, stop using it altogether….

so problems like these:

http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=115065618

For anyone who is interested, 10 years ago, Linux Journal held this interview with Linus:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=2736

Interesting thread:

http://cadence.advanstar.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB9&Number=1277&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Productive R12 users were hamstrung by upgrading to R13; but were really helped with R14.

Any opinions…. ? AutoCAD Users?

In another thread I mentioned the IT phrase “metrics.” What are metrics? It’s any measurement to stuff on the computer (in IT lingo, at least). One measure of computer users is how many bytes/files do they create in some unit of time.

I had a program that was grafted to the End command that recorded the time-in-drawing, the file size, the drafter id, time and date. After a while of recording the data, I had enough to indicate some trends on what users were doing. Since I made no measure of the “difficulty” of the project, or of the day of the week, those differences generally tended to average themselves out.

Sounds good, right? Management then wanted to extrapolate how many minutes a certain amount of work took to create a “reward/punishment” line of performance. I said I couldn’t do that. That the data just indicated that process X took about a half hour, plus or minus 15 minutes; that process B took about an hour, etc. So, you have to be carefull with metrics, especially around people with no real background in process efficiency. (A 10 man-hour job cannot be achieved by 5 people in half the time–a logic that escapes far too many; same as torquing a nut twice to 20 foot-pounds is not the same as once to 40.)

I find this ‘metrics’ approach to CAD use, has been promoted by management far too long and too much now…. it really doesn’t make any sense.

Just a couple of thoughts… maybe, this you might relate to?

I have seen “old-timers” and kids out of school come through here. My money, for the long haul is on the kids just coming into the trade. Although woefully untrained, they are eager to learn new skills and not afraid of change. I feel that they will benifit from any upgrades, while us “old farts” seem reluctant to explore.

Or this?

I have found students to be great resources to the old timers for the program and the old timers to be great reasources to the junior staff because they can if willing learn their discipline. It is as you might say give and take.

But yeah, your point is duly noted, and a good one….. some forums ‘get over’ this by just dividing the board in half…… one half for the more ‘technical, nitty-gritty, analytical’ exploration…… which I being a young brain, who is woefully untrained…. but has lots of enthuasiasm. One where any attempts at ‘general discussion’ would be moved or deleted.

And another board, for ‘general’ discussion…. i.e. the type of discussion most favoured here at Archiseek board.

Yeah, the ‘technical discussions’ tend to be quieter places on the whole….. but allow us to examine issues, smaller issues perhaps in much finer detail – which Archiseek general message board is perhaps not appropriate for at all.

Brian O’ Hanlon.