Drafting book /software recommendations?
I’m looking for any recommendations on books or software for someone who is planning to draft their own plans. That someone, ofcourse, is me. I don’t know if what I’m looking for exists and haven’t been able to find it on amazon, etc. so I thought I’d ask the experts. I need to turn my conceptual drawings into workable plans and I could use a little help. I’ll be working under the IRBC if that makes a difference.
Thanks a lot.
Replies
I use Softplan http://www.softplan.com. It is a $3,000.00 CAD program...not good for a one time user, but great if you are drawing plans professionally.
There are lots of good inexpensive CAD programs for less than $100.00. I do not remember the names, but viewed some of them at Micro Center , a warehouse type computer store. Try search for Micro Center or perhaps http://www.microcenter.com. They have locations throughout the nation.
The programs seemed to be adequate and have tutorials.
CAD is the way to go, versus hand drafting.
CAD is the wrong place to cheap out. You'll spend far more time using it than you can ever imagine. Un-learning one user interface to re-learn a better one is a major pain. I did it once. So, avoid the toy programs like TurboCad. (That's what I started with.) Start with something good. Don't be afraid to spend the better part of a grand, your time is worth it.
I'm using AutoCad LT, which is a generic rather than architectural program. It doesn't do 3D, like some of the building-specific ones do.
-- J.S.
CSTM,
I've been using CAD for close to 20 years. Started out on AutoCad R 10.0 (Their first 3D release) then CadKey, now Unigraphics (for 10 years), which is pretty much the most advanced CAD/CAE/CAM on the planet.
IMO, stick to a pencil and paper and a ruler, AND an eraser. Not worth the learning curve unless you aspire to be an architect. I still do it that way when I brainstorm. The easy to use, lower end CAD programs, don't have enough flexibility. They are good for generating visual 3D renderings, but that's it.
WSJ
There have been lengthy discussions of this before. For instance:
19787.1
-- J.S.