The AE firm needs to make sure that the design complies with the owner’s stated requirements and applicable codes and regulations.  With 3D and BIM, they might be looking more toward releasing a project with fewer clashes or space conflicts.  But isn’t it far more economical for the AE to just let the contractors “work these issues out in the field?”  After all that is what contractors are accustomed to doing.

If you want an example of the two perspectives, just look at submittals.  The priority of the AE perspective is that all the pump curves are right and the product carries the appropriate ANSI/ASME/MSS (or whatever) approvals.  The priority for the contractor is geometry.  Are there accurate cut sheets?  Do they show the critical dimensions?   Is there enough dimensional information so that a reasonably accurate 3D model can be created in CAD?  (Yes the manufacturers as starting to step up and make 3D cad models available for their products, but in many cases the contractor still needs to generate those models internally.)

So when it comes to dimensions, the standard of “good enough” is much higher for the contractor than it is for the AE.  Conflicts cost money.  It is so much more cost effective to anticipate and prevent 90% or more of the conflicts than to “work it out in the field.”  (You might remember that most people consider labor to be an expensive item to waste.)

These two sides often do not understand each other.  To the AE, the contractor knows how to install but is rather ignorant about some of the important issues like compliant design.  The the contractor, the AE can throw lines on paper and get paid good money – but doesn’t know how to make drawings where things fit.

These two differing perspectives will probably continue for some time.  For the forseeable future, on-site coordination on the part of all contractors on a project will be some of  the most profitable money they spend.

http://news.autodesk.com/portal/site/autodesk/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100402005217&newsLang=en

If you are planning to take advantage of this program, there is a very short time remaining to do so.

Do note that under training resources, there are some who are listed as  participating, but in reality have withdrawn their participation from the program.  And there are some who are participating but are not included on the list of participants.

If you do take training from a reseller at a reduced rate, be sure to remember them the next time you make a software purchase decision or renew a subscription.  The last few years have been very tough on the economy and the builders, designers and manufacturers have been some of the hardest hit.  It is very forward thinking for Autodesk to make this program available and for those resellers to make otherwise empty seats available in their training centers for people in the Autodesk Assistance Program.

To cap it depends on the capping materials holding indefinitely.  We know that failure at some point in the future is a very possible scenario.  (Will the cap hold forever against that much pressure?)

Would it make somebody feel better that the oil well that cause so much heartbreak is put out if its misery?  That might feel good.  Yes, this spill has caused untold misery.  Part of the misery has been caused by so much energy expended on stopping the flow instead of harvesting the flow.  (Did anybody really think that the top kill of pumping mud and golf balls was going to stop that much pressure?  How much talent and technical resourses was wasted on the top kill?)

The problem was not that the well was flowing.  The problem was that it was flowing to the wrong place.  So there are two approaches.  You can make it flow to the right place.  Or you can stop the flow for a time.   There are some very talented people working on solving the problem.  I hope that they are not under pressure from politicians to go with the cap-it-off route.

There is a large reserve of oil.  What is the logical reason to not use that oil?

The United Association is a union of Plumbers and Pipefitters with a strong emphasis on excellence and training.

Then one day Ebenezer the counter of the beans said let’s offer people subscriptions so that gold will keep filling the treasury.  And everybody thought that was quite the splendid idea.  Some of the peasants liked this idea because it evened out our cash flow.  But other peasants said the software works just fine, but we will upgrade someday far, far away.

And some of the peasants upgraded every so often, but others thought – we can upgrade anytime, so what’s the rush?

And when Ebenezer heard this he reported this to the king and and the king was quite troubled.  If we call out the executioner, they won’t ever buy another upgrade.  And if we put them in the dungeon, they won’t be able to earn all the silver coins they would need to upgrade.

So the king made a decree that they would limit the ability of the peasants to upgrade.  It’s three strikes and then you’re out, he bellowed.  He thought that will fix this problem.  And many of the peasants, with their head sunk low, scraped together some silver and gold and brought in their old disks and upgraded to the new version.  And the king was quite pleased.  And Ebenezer the bean counter was quite pleased.

But then, hardly anybody came the next year with their silver coins.  And the reviewers said to skip the next upgrade.  And the following year some upgraded, but many didn’t. And so it was for many years.  And Ebeneezer was very, very sad.   So they put some wise men at the round table and explained the dilemma.  And they talked and they talked.

Just then a courier ran into the meeting and said that not enough gold has come into the treasury this year because we don’t have an upgrade this year.  So Ebenezer asked what about the subscriptions?  The courier said that some peasants don’t want to pay every year for a subscription because there is not an upgrade every year.  A murmur was heard in the crowd assembled.  Somebody shouted out, Let’s do an upgrade every year.  The developer of software heard that and let out a shriek.  He said, We musn’t, musn’t do that.  And he walked away from the table knowing that the wise men assembled would never allow such folly.

But Ebenezer wryly smiled and nodded to the king.  And the king said yes, yes!  We will force people who are not on subscription to upgrade every three years.  And then we will issue a new upgrade every year so that people on subscription will feel like they are getting some benefit for all the silver and gold they are giving us.  So they instituted an annual tax on the peasants.  And the king and Ebenzer walked away from the table grinning ear to ear.

But when the developers of software heard that they clamored to Ebenezer we can’t do that.  But their clamors fell on deaf ears.  And the peasants were in an uproar.  They told Ebenzer that the upgrades would be rushed and your tax is two much of a burden on us.  And Ebenezer said, Not only will you pay the tax, but if you don’t we will charge you fifty extra pieces of silver if you pay it late.

Some peasants were very sad, but realized that Ebenezer had all the power.  Other peasants knew that their cause was doomed.  Many peasants decided to leave the kingdom.  And Ebenezer knew that some peasants would move to another kingdom, but they many of the peasants would remain.  And the kingdom would still flourish.

Then one day a recession came upon the earth.  And many in the kingdom stopped paying their taxes.  And many moved to another kingdom.  And many simply stayed with their old software that still worked.  And the king was troubled, but what could they do?  If they stop releasing annual upgrades, even more people would stop paying the tax.

To be continued later.

Why is it that many in the industry are in the stone ages when it comes to project coordination and CAD modeling?  Unless the cost of labor is dirt cheap, pre-planning, CAD coordination overlays and CAD models should increase the efficiency and profitability of projects.

Perhaps somebody can explain why the way we’ve always done it is the choice of so many in the industry.

• With exact layouts and routing, hangers could be installed before the walls go up.  Drop-in anchors could be drilled before sheet metal is installed.  Maybe small lines could be hung from concrete inserts placed into the deck before the pour.
• Hangers could be located according to the spacing requirements in the specs, being spaced out to hang from steel where allowed and to miss ductwork, cable tray and other interferences.
• The wide-open floor, besides being productive, would also be a safer environment to do the installation.
• Pipe could be run according to the schedule and coordination.
• The hangers would put on notice to any contractors who want to wing it or play squatter’s rights: they are put on notice about the intended pipe routing.
• With an approved coordinated route, that would open up possibilities to prefabricate pipe, hanger rods, strut, channel, etc.
• Floor and wall sleeves could be placed in a correct location, avoiding offsets and head scratching.
• CAD is not a burdensome expense, it is an important profitable tool.

For those who elect to do it the old way, they are bound to lose market share.  Those who plan and coordinate their work will be able to be successful in a competitive bidding environment.  When CAD and coordination are just seen as an additional expense, then the contractor is totally missing the point.  A competent CAD person with a piping background should be able to save far more than than the cost of computers, software and manpower.

Someday the contractors who insist on doing it the old way will find themselves low on work.  They will either be disqualified from bidding by owner requirements for 3D CAD drawings and building information modeling.  Or they will be shaking their heads after bid opening wondering how their competitors can possibly install that job for such a low price.

It turns out that in this institution of learning, you need a Masters Degree to teach Autocad.  No wonder they are looking for instructors.  I know quite a few people who are very competent in CAD software.  Some of them have an Associate or Bachelor Degree.  I’m not aware of any who have a Masters Degree.  Is there something wrong with our educational system when a piece of paper takes precedence over competence and experience?

Here is my strategy:  Use command aliases for most simple draw and modify commands.  Use toolbars for other less common commands, like flipping around views or UCS.  Use properties for changing values or editing.   I expect that Autocad 2015 will still work with those.  If you use Intellicad, you can function fine with the command aliases, etc.  And as you find some of the new features and innovations helpful, adopt them.  Just remember the basics.  And if one of my student goes to work for a company that is using the 2004 version, they won’t be competely lost.  This way will still function.

If somebody is at the same computer for an extended period, this might be worth a look.  If you take your most common CAD commands and create two and three letter aliases that you can type with your left hand only, then you can keep your left hand on the keyboard and your right hand on the mouse.  That would be fast.  I know people who still set their right click to enter.  I use the thumb on the spacebar for enter and leave the mouse the way Autodesk assigns it.

Now in the interest of CAD literacy, yes, I do explain that there are a ton of different ways to do the same thing.  And the important thing is to go with something that works for the individual.  Most cad managers recognize that there are individual styles to how each person approaches CAD.  So the ribbon – sure we mention it.  But to be truly literate, one needs to know how to function on a version that does not include the ribbon.

And we know that while the future will bring new things (touch screen?)  we know that the basics will continue to work.