Still wondering about Lee - I never did get an email from her, and so I cannot know how she has been doing. I think that if it were something drastic, she would have had Max let us know. I think I'm going to be able to cope with this holiday season somewhat better than I had anticipated. I originally wanted to leave town, but now I think that I can better deal with my feelings by tending to personal business at home, although my sleep continues to be erratic and disturbed. I'm still having hynagogic and lucid dreams - mostly in the early morning from 3:00 AM on, and sometimes I cannot go to sleep before that time. I think I will mention this to my doctor when I see him next, although I do not think there is a treatment for this. They are only somewhat confusing to me, but I also find myself in sudden lucid dream states at work in the middle of doing AutoCAD drawings. During these episodes, I will sometimes try to grab something or pick something up that is in the dream but not real. This always wakes me up. I'm continuing to send positive thoughts to Lee and I hope I hear something soon. I also want to plan a short trip to Colorado and see one of my two remaining cousins - the one who started a very successful delicatessen business and who was unable to attend DF's funeral. DF was her last remaining uncle, and she was very unhappy that she was unable to travel to Texas for the funeral. Lars

Reno has a good summary of the development of CAD/CADD from the mid 80s or so. AutoCad, for example, started as a 2-D drafting program for engineering applications. It was much later that they bolted on programs that would allow 2-D architectural applications (for example, the intersection of intersecting walls in plan view with the intersections deleted). 3-D came much, much later for AutoCad, and initially consisted of an add-on program from other vendors, if I remember correctly. Early 3-D programs were mostly wiring diagrams which were hard to see and visualize, much less solid 3-d pictures. DataCad and other early programs were designed from the beginning for architectural design; the 2-D and 3-D was integrated earlier, but these vendors lacked the financial and marketing resoures of AutoCad. Then European software vendors entered the marketplace for both engineering and architectural users, with advanced features like finite analysis and light-ray applications. As the market developed, and low-cost computing emerged, applications began to focus on data base/relational applications and designing for architect in 3-D, rather than starting in 2-D and merging to 3-D. All of this is probably far beyond this forum for consumers interested in building their own home! The good news for most who visit this forum and thread is that a few of the major software manufacturers of engineering and architectural software have also marketed simplified versions of their software that will do 2-D and 3-D applications ranging from decks, to landscaping to fully integrated house design at reasonable expense. The bad news is that none of the software is "smart" enough to prevent mistakes and errors in the input process. It still takes substantial experience and judgement to make these computerized tools work efficiently and effectively. Good luck!

What this discussion is really about is not drawing by hand or using a computer, it's really about what work is being done, what sort of "service" a client is getting and, most importantly, what the final result or outcome will be. Builders and designers may often work based on existing designs that they have built and are already fully resolved and stored in the computer. When a new client comes along, one of the existing computer files is called up and "reheated" or tweaked to meet the new client's wish list. When clients go to a builder/designer who charges $1/SF for services, this may be what is happening. Plus the builder/designer simply transfers any additional costs to the construction budget, where the client never sees them. For many consumers, this approach fits them perfectly. They don't want a custom designed home. All they want is an existing home that's tweaked to include their list of features. Think about what's going on: could any adult make a living, pay business expenses and reinvest in growing their business on $1/SF (or less)? How many 3,000 SF houses would such a builder need to do for annual income sufficient to stay in business and make a living for his family? That's why construction costs, and extra costs due to low allowances, provide most of the needed business income for builders and in-house designers. In this business model, the minimal "design" fees are simply a way to get people to sign a construction contract. In other words, what's being done may by cooking a previously existing floor plan until "complete", with little or no corresponding thought or work on site planning, climate and green design, and almost no thought to exterior massing and design. When the floor plan is sufficiently baked, the rest of the project is like icing a new cake. The exterior decoration is simply applied and handed to the client. This sort of incomplete thinking about design is why we see so many postings here on this forum of "fat" house plans, and corresponding ill-proportioned, roof-heavy exteriors, with a pretty "street face" and vanilla sides and backs. It's why so many designs are a miss-mash of stacked gable roofs and patch-work quilt wall materials--all decoration and no substance! All of the effort went into tweaking a plan and little or no corresponding work took place elsewhere. Architects work differently. They organize their work and fees by phases, working from very open-ended studies and explorations for a custom design, to a highly detailed set of drawings and specifications for bidding and construction. These phases of work are clearly defined and derived from a historical understanding of how building design proceeds in a step by step process, from initial ideas to final details, where insides, outsides, site, codes, energy, etc., are all considered together throughout the design process. The five typical phases for designing a project are: schematic design, design development, construction drawings and specifications, bidding and construction. One phase does not begin until the client has approved the work from the prior phase. These phases are why many architects may start a project using pencil, pen and tracing paper as they meet and discuss ideas, explore site opportunities, develop energy and green strategies, finally pulling everything together in a holistic schematic design. Thereafter, with the design direction identified, a computer may be used effectively to refine and add greater precision and detail, until the work is complete. It's not impossible to use computers for schematic design, but it is more difficult to sit in a meeting with clients, talk about needs and opportunities while punching information into a computer. It's a lot more effective to sit with clients and "doodle" with pencil and paper where everyone can see what their ideas may actually look like. The costs for this type of work is usually set by the architect as either a fixed fee (with conditions on what the fixed fee covers so that the work doesn't ramble on endlessly) or a percentage of the construction cost, or some combination, depending on circumstances. The important point for consumers to understand is that architect's fees are based on the quality and amount of original work by an architect, while SF costs may be based on minimal changes to an existing project, with possible hidden costs rolled into the construction budget. The issue is really not about how the work is performed--by hand or computer--it's really about what work is performed (or not performed) for a client, and what will be the end result: something custom and original or something reheated. Sorry about the long message, but it's important to point out that there's nothing wrong with either custom or reheated designs as long as the consumer understands what they are getting for what they are paying.

I'm a pro and there are several programs that get used in the industry. Of course AutoCad is still the primary floor plan maker with Revit becoming it's possible replacement. They both have their strengths. AutoCad is great in that beginning phase where you are still working out a floor plan and is still the most comfortable for me to use, where Revit is superior in the phase where you are already solidifying items like windows. Revit also is superior in 3d because it builds a 3d environment as well as sections etc while you are building the floor plan. Autcocad's 3d is unintuitive and difficult to learn. As far as 3d software, Sketchup is that great first place you visit where you are trying to work out massing and check proportions etc. It looks very cartoonish and unfinished unless you use a 3rd party renderer. Google recently took away the ability to import dwg into the program unless you purchase the pro version. 3ds Max is becoming the standard for 3d rendering because it is so lifelike. However, it's terribly time consuming and expensive to purchase. I haven't heard of Solidworks being used for Interior Design because there are better programs that will help visual spaces better. They are a better fit for Engineers and Product Designers. I haven't heard of alias or wavefront.