Re: My Rant

Bravo Derrek! In my opinion, designers should not be routing piping using CAD in most cases. Excellent observation below:

Derrek Haynes wrote, in part:

> In defense of the simple CAD operator...
> I found that design work required a different mindset, one
> of innovation and creativity that was distracted by the
> bottleneck of having to stop and record it in drawings.

Not to mention staying on top of the inevitable design changes over the duration of the project. "Simple CAD operator" implies a reduced status. If we're "stuck with" CAD (which we are), tasks need to be intelligently distributed.

> An engineer wrestling with a new application
> or a new combination of old ones for a complicated
> project benefited by having me translate his concepts
> to the media.

Due to the nature of piping design, I find that designers essentially function as engineers (after the P&IDs are prepared) and operate autonomously, checking in with the engineers when particular problems arise.

> Instead of carrying 20 variables in his/her mind and having
> to stop and remember how to fillet a line in the middle of what might
> be a spark of genius, a simple sketch or note or a mumbled
> thought over my shoulder kept the flow going.

Absolutely. Maybe I'm addle-brained or just incompetent, but I find that piping design is an iterative process whereby the designer must focus on many possible solutions at once, modifying the original concept as the project progresses. Adding complicated CAD work to that takes away from thought patterns required to think in advance (and adds value to the notion of "simple CAD operator".

> The concept hit paper faster, with a more efficient use of
> white space and sometimes with smoother notes describing
> it so it could be then be used in the field or shop by anyone.
>
> As a CAD draughtsman, I feel my best contribution to the project
> is to document and communicate the concepts using whatever
> tools and techniques are available quickly.
>
> A previous poster mentioned how Win2000 and Acad2000 combined
> are easily a full time study. I fully agree since Autocad alone
> boasts hundreds of changes/additions to their command set
> with every upgrade.

I'd like to emphasize the above paragraphs.

> Add the usual computer glitches, software bugs, unusual
> client requests, multiple projects, multiple clients. aging hardware
> drivers, new exchange modes like intranets, LANS or realtime DWG
> sharing over the internet, and several engineers all with personal
> idiosyncracies and you have a recipe for one busy CAD man.
>
> To be considered `clueless' chaffes somewhat, and `just' drafting
> is to liken a piano player's perfect rendition of a classical piece as
> `laying down someone else's designs'.
>
> Every corporation has a responsibility to further
> the bottom line by encouraging in house training, subsidizing
> continuing education and insisting those who know share,
> but how many do?

Thanks Derreck, for that thoughtful post, and I hope I haven't screwed-up the intent of my few replies to your comments.

Paul
PipingDesign.com Received on Sat Jan 08 22:12:00 2000