Re: Returning Buffalos

Paul,

I am just a piping rookie and do not know that much about the old ways of designing on "plastic vellum". I think both ways of designing should be looked upon in respect to the job size and such. The "old way" is now difficult since there are not so many "manual" designers anymore. (Please correct me if I am mistaken). The "model" is a also a very good tool to design a plant for the obvious reasons that you mentioned. The design in general is just as good as the information that is used to make the design. If you are working with the wrong info you will get a wrong drawing or model.

And yes the people making the design are more creative than any machine can be.

Just a thought from a piping rookie using cad in his everyday work. --- In PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bowers <pbowers@...> wrote:
>
> Not to mention that making the simplest of changes to a model can often
> take hours rather than the seconds it would take with a paper or
even 2D
> CAD drawing.
>
> Part of the problem is that there is no longer a fixed point of
> reference from the perspective of the viewer/designer and there is no
> easily-accessed notation within the 3D model itself. The human brain is
> excellent at pattern recognition, but the current crop of software
> offerings do not take advantage of this natural ability.
>
> There are ways to simulate this, but it involves often-complex, custom
> software workarounds and that is in the realm of IT, not engineering
> design. Also, such workarounds force designers into a set of
> machine/interface manipulation that detracts from creativity.
>
> Which leads to my next point: computers and software are stupid, and
> only do what they are told to do. The original software designers
> dictated the steps that had to be followed in order for the software to
> function properly - deviate from that sequence and "your mileage may
> vary". That's hardly an environment for creativity to flourish;
instead,
> it encourages rote behaviour that actually mimics a machine.
>
> 3D shaded models slowly rotating on dual 21" monitors or a 72"
projector
> screen display sure does look nice and impressive, though.
>
> I'll write more/respond later if there's any further interest in my
> thoughts. We don't seem to have a lot of CAD people here, so many
> engineer readers (especially if they are too young to remember the "old
> ways") might not appreciate what my points are.
>
> Paul
>
>
> Christopher Wright wrote:
> > On Aug 25, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Paul Bowers wrote:
> >
> >> My assertion is that the technology often *really* provides only one
> >> thing that is of great value: visualization of a complex piping
system
> >> for those who are not adept at reading 2D drawings. And when it
comes
> >> down to reality, it's 2D drawings that are used by the
constructors to
> >> build what we design.
> > As such it's also great camouflage for ineptitude. I'm trying to cope
> > with just such a situation at the moment, where a 3D CAD
representation
> > is being confused with an organized design. Drawings are intended to
> > communicate requirements to fabricators unequivocally; unless it's
done
> > by someone with an understanding of design, prints of a CAD model,
even
> > with dimensions, are just cartoons.
> >> Other, lesser (often questionable) benefits include: [1] better
> >> management tracking of time spent on models/drawings, [2] local and
> >> global MTOs updated instantaneously, [3] "automatic" extraction of
> >> isometrics (AKA one source of physical design data).
> > None of which is any help if the design isn't organized and carefully
> > thought out. Better management tracking, MTO issuance and ISO
> > extraction can't make a crappy design anything but crap.
> >
> >> In practice, the creative mind is not predisposed to being exact
when
> >> dealing with "fuzzy" design concepts, but this is usually what
piping
> >> design software forces upon the user.
> > Anyone who thinks that software 'designs' anything has been
> > misinformed. I know that a lot of people imagine that CAD or FEA or
> > Caesar II are 'design' software, but it isn't. Without a design in
the
> > mind of a designer none of those packages is any more capable of
design
> > than a word processor can create
>
Received on Wed Aug 30 17:57:00 2006