- Written by CADnoob
- Category: Philosophy
- Hits: 87
No I have not gone off the rails and I'm not headed to a wooded cabin with a bunch of surplus military gear. That was last week and as I promised, as soon as I got my pop-tarts everything was ok.
This is more of a realization / waxing poetically about the conditions of the CAD world. One of the hardest things to know is the future. We spend a hole lot of time trying to predict and prepare and ultimately end up having to change those plans and preparations. I am at a point in the CAD world where I'm starting to go past a general grasp of the basics and branching out into specializations. My particular path will likely do with the work in the area i live (industrial) but I have caught a glimpse of something that peaked my interest. There is much talk about generative design and this topic is fascinating to me... Its also a bit intimidating. Its as though I'm a luddite who is fascinated with the machinery that will destroy my livelihood. Granted I'm not about to grab a pitch fork and head to the coding floor but the cutting edge is a healthy mix of scary and fascinating.
In my quest for deciding a specialization I got a good look at the breadth of design tools out there. Autodesk alone seems to have everything under the sun from Revit to Fusion it seems like complete deviations from vanilla Autocad. And this is just one design software company. There is focus on the lifecycle of the design and design automation and it is all really interesting but it almost seems like its chasing the QA ethos of systems like ISO or six sigma as opposed to working towards a new era in design. Granted the ability of computers to plow through tough problems using brute force will make much of the work of today disappear, but this does not seem like true progress in the arena of design, just more efficient design tools.
They all seem to be chasing the zeitgeist of tomorrow and I'm still struggling to understand the vision they are seeing or if they are seeing anything at all. I've consumed a lot of lofty press about what the design engines of tomorrow will be and honestly I'm not sure some of those individuals presenting even know.
Well I had a revelation. If i work towards change any of my efforts in shaping the design tools of tomorrow will fall under this umbrella. I have recognized what i believe to be the necessary concept that will change the design tool of tomorrow away from the more efficient into the realm of game changing. This is the one in the many. I have given the name of Synthesis Medium to this concept. I believe to see any real change we will need to adopt the idea that we are not building tools for design but building environments of where designs are manifest. It is the Synthesis Medium.
I think we could create the tools that will allow us to think in the language of the tools them selves. I have heard of people thinking in languages other than their own. It has happened to me and it usually does when the language its self presents a better representation of reality than my native tongue. I once formulated an idea about what makes things we as individuals value like music be a recognized and shared value among other people. I called this idea 'Core References'. Something universal and inherent to our nature that is unspoken yet still universally recognized and it is manifest in a design. We all recognize it yet its totally left unspoken. This is akin to Chomsky's universal grammar. I know that we can go beyond thinking in language and move to thinking in concepts. One of my favorite experiences is coding in abstract. Often when coding I can see the answer and cannot formulate it in words. I have to code it and then explain it. This can be done with design. For me this is what should unite all design software efforts. They should foster the conceptual language which will allow design synthesis seemingly from nothing more that elements of the program or medium.
Ok I know i just went way the hell out there and probably over complicated things and I also realize that I'll probably never make it past sophomoric jokes about genitalia when it comes to actually creating these tools but I had to share my grand vision.
- Written by CADnoob
- Category: Opinions
- Hits: 158
It's hard to believe I've been noobing things up for three years now... At the three year mark I decided to re-up my certification. That's right, this noob is once again an Autodesk Certified Professional: AutoCAD. I hear the questions now... "why do you call your self a noob" short answer is that I do noobid things.
I have heard lot of pros and cons about getting certified. I personally think its one of the reasons I am currently gainfully employed, but for others it seems like a gimmick. I can see their point of view as some people have been in the profession longer than the software its self. I don't aim to answer the question "to certify or not to certify" as it really depends on the individual and their career. If you can write your own career path with out it, that is great, but for me it has been an excellent way to communicate my dedication and competency in this profession. For me I think they are worth it, especially when Open Door Certification is going on! (Autodesk Events)
I'm not sure how frequently these events are held but if you have any interest in certification I would check them out. You can also check with your local re-seller to see if they have any info on when the next open door certification will take place.
If you have decided to take the exam the big question is how hard is it? I don't have a great answer for this unfortunately. In general the exam seemed relatively easy as it relates to my general knowledge of the program. I probably use 80% of the elements tested on in my daily work. That said, the scoring of the exam indicated that a surface utilization of the program is not the sole basis of scoring. In general if you follow what the guides tell you as to areas of testing its spot on as to what I experienced.
From what I was told, generally its a pretty difficult exam to pass. I was able to pass the exam but it was obvious how this test could be difficult. I suspect the real difficulty comes in doing things exactly as written and doing them efficiently. Then again I have no idea how they do the scoring. What most disappointing is not understanding exactly why I missed the questions I did. In the recap they do tell you how you scored in broad categories, but for me that left more questions than answers.
When it comes to the questions (at least for the exam I took) they were are really straight forward. An example question might be as follow:
(NOTE: THIS NOT AN ACTUAL QUESTION NOR IS IT MEAN TO REPRESENT ANY QUESTION ON THE EXAM)
Given a drawing, draw a circle with with a given start point 1 and the radius ending at another point 2. What is the distance from another point 3 to where line 4 intersects the circle.
As you can tell its pretty straight forward. The complexities arise when there may be multiple steps; like they may ask you to change the units of the drawing or edit the geometry properties etc.. Some times you'll have to create a drawing other times all you do is move elements or change aspects about them. Its a complete mixed bag of commands and conditions.
What I love about it compared to other tests I have taken is that they have developed a fantastic way of testing your abilities with out making "trick" exam. So there are no gotcha type questions, just full bore capability.
In short there is no cramming for this test. You have to practice and know the program. Its not impossible to pass it on a short time line as I did that my first time through but that was after a month of self study after a week long course on the program. Having gone through it a second time after a couple years operating the program, it still is a formidable challenge... though no impossible.
- Written by CADnoob
- Category: Tips, Tricks & Nonsense
- Hits: 189
I am creating some Miltileaders for a set of drawings that I am now working on. Normally all this kind of stuff has been handled by the time I get a hold of drawings but today Is special and i get to learn something new.
This one is actually short and sweet, but thats mostly cause Autodesk already solved the problem and tried to make it simple for me to figure out... but the nood in me will prevail... I will make the simple difficult.
So I created a fancy multileader for this project (the fancy one is not pictured below) and my problem is that the place where the landing attaches is always on the right (or left). Its not technically wrong and the drawings are ok ,but it just looks squished and when you place the multileader directly above the callout point it goes to the side of the block I created. What would be nice is if the multileader pointed to the side of the block regardless of the position of the block. Its hard to explain it but you want I want the place where the multileader line attaches to the block to rotate around the block. But instead I get the behavior below.
Like i said this one is simple. After spending a few second digging around I happened on the answer provided by the wonderful LTISACAD in the forums.
Basicaly the solution is you just have to have opened the dialog before and there it is... whats got two thumbs and is a total noob? This guy!
Go to the Multileader Style menu by clicking the little arrow under the ribbon panel or type in MLEADERSTYLE. The go to the content tab and change the attachment from "Center Extents" to "Insertion Point"
Viola, It rotates around the block as desired.